Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Non-Paying Passengers

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what percentage of passengers carried by B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and B.S.A.A. during 1946 were carried without charge.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): None, Sir, except for members of the staffs of the Corporations travelling on duty, persons travelling for publicity purposes in the interests of the Corporations, and wives and families of members of the staff entitled to free passages, in accordance with staff contracts.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider that rather a misleading answer to my Question? Surely a great many civil servants of all Departments have travelled on these lines without paying. The trips might have been "paper" ones, but will the hon. Gentleman try to give the information asked for?

Mr. Lindgren: The answer was not misleading, and was not intended to be so. Every passage for every civil servant has been paid for by the appropriate Govern-

ment Department, and the payments made by those Departments have appeared, and do appear, in the accounts of the Corporations.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate the number of these publicity experts who have had free passages?

Mr. Lindgren: They are not publicity experts, unless one so terms a member of the Press. If the Corporations have invited them to see something which they are doing, they have not, of course, charged fares when they have taken them up.

B.O.A.C. (Vacation of Premises)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what premises in London B.O.A.C. are preparing to surrender and at what date, in view of the acquisition of large premises adjoining the Great West road.

Mr. Lindgren: This is a question of management, and therefore outside the scope of a detailed Parliamentary reply, but I can assure the hon. Member that when the British Overseas Airways Corporation occupy their new premises they will vacate accommodation of almost equal area in the London and Bristol areas.

Scottish Advisory Council

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether the recommendations of the Scottish Advisory Council to the Corporations will be laid before Parliament.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. The Council was formed under Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Act to advise the Corporations in relation to the discharge of their functions in respect of matters of interest to Scotland.

Colonel Hutchison: Does that mean that the public will have no way of knowing what recommendations the Advisory Council have made?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, except that the recommendations are made to the Board of B.E.A., and B.E.A. are required to make a report annually to Parliament. I shall be surprised if their annual report


does not include a statement on the work and functions of the Scottish Advisory Council.

Civil Aerodromes (Transfer to Ministry)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation which civil airfields have been taken over and what was the purchase price paid by his Ministry.

Mr. Lindgren: As the list of aerodromes is long, I will, with permission, circulate the answer to the first part of the Question in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As to the second part of the Question, none of the aerodromes referred to have yet been purchased by my Department, although some were purchased in whole or in part by the Service Departments.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that because payment has not been made, there is no real authority over any of these aerodromes? Neither the original owners nor the Government accept responsibility. Will he see that the buildings are maintained, because nothing is being done about that at the moment?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. I will certainly do that.
Following is the reply:
The following aerodromes which were previously licensed for civil use are now under the management of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, although some are not yet open for flying:
Aberdeen (Dyce), Belfast (Sydenham), Benbecula. Birrningham (Elmdon), Bristol (Whitchurch), Cardiff (Pengam Moors), Carlisle (Kingstown) (administered jointly with R.A.F.), Doncaster, Gatwick, Grimsby, Exeter, Inverness (Longman), Islay (Port Ellen), Liverpool (Speke), Nottingham (Tollerton), Prestwick, Renfrew, Ronaldsway (by arrangement with Isle of Man Government), Shoreham, Stornoway, Sumburgh, Tiree, Westonsuper-Mare, Wick, Yeadon and York.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Security Check

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when a security check was last made

prior to 10th December in Germany; now many officers were so employed; what steps have been taken since the recent loss of "top secret" files; and how the loss arose.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): In Berlin and Hamburg, where regular daily checks are made, the last checks before 10th December were made on 9th December. Elsewhere checks are made at various intervals as considered necessary in the light of local conditions. Manpower is limited and the number of officers engaged on this work varies according to locality; in Berlin one or two officers in each Division or Group are normally so employed. I am not aware of the loss of any "top secret" files.

Sir G. Fox: Will the Minister say how a report appeared in the Press that a "top secret" file was lost, and that it could not be found out what had happened to it?

Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I can give no reasons why the Press should report certain things in a certain way, but there have been no "top secret" files lost, to my knowledge.

Offenders (Amnesty)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if it is the intention of the British Administration to follow the lead set by the U.S.A., as announced by General J. T. McNarney, in granting an amnesty to minor Nazi offenders.

Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir.

Mr. Shepherd: What is to be gained by keeping these minor prisoners in captivity?

Mr. Hynd: There are no minor Nazis in captivity in the British zone. In my opinion, the measures taken in the British zone are much more effective than those taken in the American zone, and the numbers of those who have still to be dealt with under the de-Nazification procedure in the British zone are certainly much less.

Mr. Eden: Could the Chancellor of the Duchy consider shortly fixing some date, after which there would be no preferring of charges for offences long past?

Mr. Hynd: I mentioned in the Debate the other day that we do not consider that the fixing of an arbitrary date is the answer, but we are making a target of the end of this year for the whole of the problem, and the middle of this year for the bulk of the problem. We believe that that procedure will best meet the case.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman consider directing the attention of the Secretary of State to minor Nazi sympathisers in this country?

British and German Youth (Contact)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what grounds he has refused permission for a delegation from the Council for Education in World Citizenship to visit Germany; and whether he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. J. Hynd: I am always anxious to encourage contact between British and German youth. But staff and facilities are already fully extended in dealing with delegations of teachers, educationists and older students. I should certainly not wish to exclude the possibility of a visit at a later date.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister bear it mind for the future?

Mr. Hynd: I have already said so

Pitwood, Ruhr

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the present supply of pitwood to the Ruhr coalfield is being drawn from the Soviet zone of Germany or other territories of Eastern Europe.

Mr. J. Hynd: The first deliveries of pit wood from the Russian zone were received at the Ruhr mines during December, 1946, and amounted to 5,500 metric tons or 7.5 per cent. of the total receipts during the month. Deliveries from the Russian zone during January, 1947, have been very satisfactory amounting to about 23,000 metric tons up to 27th January There have been no deliveries from other territories of Eastern Europe.

Mr. Vane: Has the hon. Gentleman any arrangements by which these supplies can be regular and assured?

Mr. Hynd: These supplies are part of the barter arrangements which are in operation between the two zones.

Rhine Navigation

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made with the work of making the Rhine again fit for navigation.

Mr. J, Hynd: The first emergency channel was opened up from the sea to Basle in September, 1945, and in the ensuing month nearly 600,000 tons were carried on the Rhine in the British zone. In December, 1946, before ice produced the usual winter restrictions on traffic, over 1,100,000 tons per month were being carried. In the British zone this entailed the salvage of over 2,000 sunken vessels, and the removal of the wreckage of 16 major bridges.

Mr. Vane: Can the hon. Gentleman say now that amount of traffic compares with a typical prewar year?

Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I need notice of that Question.

Major Cecil Poole: Would the Minister speak more slowly, because hon. Members behind him cannot catch what he is saying?

Civil Disabilities

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what automatic civil disabilities are in force against Germans for no reason except that they have held a commission in the German armed forces.

Mr. J. Hynd: None, Sit

Mr. Vane: Would the hon. Gentleman ensure that that information is widely circulated, because it is believed that there are such disabilities, and rumours of that kind do not redound to the credit of our administration?

Mr. Hynd: There are no automatic disabilities for the purpose referred to in the Question. There are certain categories of regular officers of the Wehrmacht which come within certain restrictions.

Education Policy

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the new educational appointment indicates


that the direction of all educational policy is still to remain under our control in the British zone of Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it, therefore, that under the educational policy pursued in the British zone, every encouragement will continue to be given to the appreciation of the democratic way of life?

Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir. That is the purpose of the appointment of the new educational adviser to the Commander-in-Chief.

Industrial Nationalisation

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he proposes to take to nationalise those industries in Germany whose decartelisation has been announced; and whether, in the process of decartelisation, care will be exercised to avoid financial control being obtained by non-German interests.

Mr. J. Hynd: With regard to the first part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley (Major Bramall) on 4th December and 29th January. With regard to the second part of the Question, the extent to which non-German interests can participate in these industries will depend upon developments in the policy for allowing foreign investment in German industry generally. The present policy is not to permit such investment.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of people responsible for the economic planning of Germany are seriously concerned about what will happen as a result of this policy, and will he take steps to clarify it?

Unpaid Control Officers

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state the names of the two officers employed by the British Control Commission in Germany who do not at present receive official salaries; and whether he will state the positions which they occupy or the appointments which they hold.

Mr. J. Hynd: These officers are Mr. C. B. Dyson, the chief of the Commerce Division, and Mr. T. H. Y. Bonsey, the controller of the aluminium, magnesium

and light alloys sub-section of the Metallurgy Branch.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend state what are their commercial connections in this or any other country?

Mr. Hynd: In the case of Mr. Dyson, the chief of the Commerce Division, he was in private business on his own account and is in receipt of no payment from any other source. In the case of Mr. Bonsey, I understand the balance of his salary is paid by the British Aluminium Co.

Telecommunications

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding telecommunications for business purposes to and from Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: Quadripartite agreement has now been reached on the provision of international telephone and telegraph communications with Germany, and the date of opening will be announced as soon as the administrative details have been worked out. Business communications will initially have to be confined to the exchange of information but the question of extending the service to permit the closing of business transactions is under urgent examination.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the hon. Gentleman say who is to decide the nature of the communications; will there be a censorship?

Mr. Hynd: All communications to and from Germany are subject to censorship.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: And still will be under this arrangement?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to continue British recognition of the Polish Provisional Government, in view of their proceedings in their general election.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I do not think any useful purpose would be served by withdrawing recognition which would sever our contact with Poland.

Sir T. Mcore: Since the Polish Provisional Government have apparently got away with this monstrous travesty of a free election, what is the next step that His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?

Mr. Bevin: To carry on the process of conversion.

Professor Savory: Have not the existing Polish Government done everything possible to forfeit recognition? They have carried through this election, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. by fraud, violence and murder.

Mr. Gallacher: Nearly as bad as Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORFU SINKINGS (BRITISH CLAIM)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take in regard to the loss of the lives of British seamen owing to the actions of the Albanian Government in recognised international waters and the subsequent attitude of that Government.

Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government have taken this case to the Security Council and the hearing has just begun.

Sir T. Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what punishment His Majesty's Government propose to demand for this brutal attack against humanity?

Mr. Bevin: Demand compensation, and the usual proposals for dealing with an incident of this character. I prefer it to be investigated, now the hearing has begun, before I comment.

Major Bruce: Did the right hon. Gentleman consider taking the matter before the International Court?

Mr. Bevin: No, I did not think there was a legal matter in it. It was quite a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Austria following the deputation of leading Members of their Government who were recently received in this country;

and, particularly, as to whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recognise the freedom and independence of Austria; the withdrawal of all foreign troops; the restoration of the former borders; and the complete separation of Austria from Germany.

Mr. Bevin: I will hear in mind the possibility of making a statement on Austria, but I think the policy of His Majesty's Government is in general well known both to the Austrian Government and to the public. As has been made clear on many occasions, His Majesty's Government take their stand by the Moscow Declaration of November, 1943. As hon. Members will also be aware, negotiations for an Austrian Treaty are at present being carried on by the Deputies in London, and will, I hope, be completed by the Council of Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Moscow next month.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that the greatest barrier to the recovery of Austria is the existence in that country of so many Nazis and Fascists, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether steps are being taken to investigate these men who fled from their own countries to escape vengeance?

Mr. Bevin: We are doing all we can with regard to displaced persons and the people who are under our control.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent His Majesty's Government have been in touch, either through His Majesty's Embassy in Pans or other diplomatic channels, with the Spanish Republican Government since that Government was re-formed.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. During the last few days there have been unofficial contacts between His Majesty's Embassy in Paris and the new Spanish Republican administration.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While welcoming that reply, I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that the Spanish Republican Government form one of the principal factors which must be taken into account in attempting to find a democratic solution in Spain; also, is he aware


that the composition of the new Government is such that they would be likely to welcome the help and advice of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Bevin: The Government were so recently formed that I must wait and see whether they have stability.

Major Guy Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who, in fact, are the Spanish Republican Government?

Mr. Bevin: I have not the whole of the names here. It the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question, I will see that he gets an answer.

Major Legge-Bourke: Who initiated these unofficial talks—the Spanish Republican Government or this Government?

Mr. Bevin: I think it was a perfectly mutual approach.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representative on the U.N.O. Commission of Inquiry now in Greece will be instructed to urge the Commission to hear evidence outside Athens; and whether any members of the Commission have vet visited Northern Greece.

Mr. Bevin: Instructions have already been sent to the British representative on the United Nations Commission in Greece to urge the Commission to hear evidence outside Athens. No members of the Commission have visited Northern Greece hitherto, but the Commission proposed to transfer its base to Salonica today.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

Nigeria (Teachers' Salaries)

Mr. Morley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will see that the headmaster's bonus, in respect of the year 1945. is paid to the headmasters of government and native authority schools in Northern Nigeria is well as in the rest of Nigeria.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I am informed that no bonus is paid to headmasters of Government or native authority schools

anywhere in Nigeria. The question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Keeling: Now that the Nigerian Legislative Council includes elected representatives of Northern Nigeria, would it not be proper that these headmasters should ask one of their representatives on that Council to raise the matter there instead of referring it to this House particularly in view of the reply given?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware that this matter has been raised by the headmasters.

Mr. Morley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, when he takes his final decision on the report of the Harrigan Commission on Salaries, he will secure that the salaries of non-government teachers in Nigeria are levelled up to those of government teachers.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Nigerian Government are appointing a committee to make early recommendations for new salary scales for teachers employed by voluntary agencies, and until it has reported I shall not be in a position to give a definite answer to this Question.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Has my right hon. Friend given advice to the committee that the salaries of non-Government teachers should approximate those of teachers employed by the Government?

Mr. Creech Jones: Surely, this is a matter for the committee and the representatives from the National Union of Teachers.

Groundnuts

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that considerable quantities of groundnuts are rotting in African ports because of the refusal of export licences by the controller of oil seeds in Uganda; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter;
(2) whether he is aware that there is a reluctance among African producers to sell groundnuts to the Tripartite Produce Agency, which holds a monopoly in the purchase of groundnuts, because of the low price offered; that the price offered by the Tripartite Produce Agency is £19 10s. a ton as compared with £27 5s. a ton offered by the Ministry of Food in the same area to which Ministry African producers are refused a licence to sell; and


what steps he proposes to take to remedy the situation.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Tripartite Produce Agency buys cotton seed in Uganda on behalf of the Ministry of Food. It buys at railway stations up-country and sells to the Ministry of Food free on board at Mombasa. The difference between the two prices is made up of transport, storage arid other charges, plus a profit to the Agency of 5s. per ton. The Agency does not purchase any groundnuts as there is no surplus of groundnuts in East Africa over local needs, and export is not at present allowed. My hon. Friend's statement as regards Uganda groundnuts rotting in African ports is, therefore, incorrect. The Ministry of Food is purchasing groundnuts in Nyasaland at a price of £27 7s. per ton free on board. These purchases are made direct from Government and not through the intermediary of the Tripartite Agency.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that this is a typical instance of the failure of bulk buying, and will he also explain what proportion of the £7 difference between f.o.b. Uganda and c.i.f. Mombasa, is made up of these mysterious 'other charges"?

Mr. Creech Jones: In the first place, this is not a failure but a success of bulk purchasing In regard to the difference Between the two prices, that is a matter which I am looking into at the present time.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage five shillings a ton represents?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir, I cannot give that information without notice.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say how much below world prices are those which have been paid by the Ministry of Food, and, if the difference is considerable, why the native is not getting the full price for his products?

Mr. Creech Jones: I believe that in this particular case the prices paid were in line with the standard prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (BROADCASTING)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he

is satisfied that the broadcast arrangements at Hong Kong are up to date; and what is the range of the transmitter used.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. The Hong Kong local broadcasting service has been brought up-to-date with new equipment supplied since the Japanese capitulation. The range of the transmissions varies between about 12 and 15 miles according to reception conditions.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Minister really consider that 12 or 15 miles is a satisfactory range for this transmitter, and, in view of the necessity of stimulating British trade in the Far East, will he see that we have a transmitter that will cover the whole of that area?

Mr. Creech Jones: There are certain practical difficulties, but consultations are going on with other Departments, though obviously this matter is a little wider than that of a Colonial Government.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend consider the provision of radio transmitters in other British Colonies, for instance, Cyprus, with a view to promoting not only British business contacts but British public relations work?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, but that does not arise on this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the King Edward Memorial Hospital receives an annual grant from the Government of Bermuda but provides no training in nursing to other than white applicants; and if he will ensure that training is made available to all suitable applicants, regardless of colour, or cause the Government grant to be withdrawn.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the petition from the people of Bermuda asking that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire and report on the conditions in that territory; and what answer he has been able to give.

Mr. Creech Jones: As already indicated, I have been in consultation with the Governor regarding the representations made on the matters referred to by my hon. Friends. I hope to receive the


Governor's observations very shortly, and will then make a statement as soon as possible.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the population of Bermuda signed the petition referred to in the Question as being from the people of Bermuda?

Mr. Creech Jones: The petition was very widely signed, and I should imagine that probably the majority of the adult workers signed it.

Mr. Rhys, Davies: is it necessary to secure the signatures of everybody within a Colony or Dependency before a petition can receive attention from the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Jamaican Railway (Loss)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the loss on the Jamaican nationalised railway for the latest period for which figures are available; if this loss includes amortisation on capital or is only an operating loss; and what has been the total loss on this railway since it was acquired by the Jamaican Government.

Mr. Creech Jones: The operating loss for the financial year ended 31st March, 1946, was £128,000, not including interest and redemption charges amounting over that period to £99,700. The accumulated loss since the Jamaica Government acquired the railway in 1900 up to the end of the current year will, it is estimated, be approximately £5,500,000.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass those figures to the Minister of Transport, in order that they may be of some use to him in his advocacy of the nationalisation of transport?

Mr. Creech Jones: It was because of the hopelessness of private enterprise that the Jamaican Government took over this railway and ran it as a national concern.

Broadcasting (Jamaica)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Jamaican Government radio station is inaudible in many parts of the island

except on expensive sets and that it only operates for six hours a day; and when he expects that Jamaica will have a radio system comparable in efficiency and general reception with surrounding Latin-American countries.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. I understand that the provision of a widely audible service in this mountainous Colony, with the limited wavelengths allocated under international agreements, involves certain technical difficulties; but the possibility of improving the service is under examination.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what sort of improvement likely to take place and when, in view of the fact that this service is absolutely disgraceful?

Mr. Creech Jones: Experiments have recently been made for extending the present basis of the service, and schemes for the Caribbean are also under examination.

Mona Reservoir, Jamaica

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the original estimated cost of the Mona reservoir in Jamaica; how the cost was originally allocated as between local revenue and the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund; how much the scheme has actually cost; and if he is satisfied that the reservoir is likely to fulfil the purpose for which it was built.

Mr. Creech Jones: The original estimated cost of the Mona Reservoir in Jamaica was £382,000 It later became necessary to provide an additional £80,900. These sums were provided as a loan from the C.D. and W. Vote. The fixing of the terms of the loan, or alternatively, its conversion into a free grant. are due to be considered shortly. It is estimated that the actual cost of the whole scheme will be £460,385. Technical tests of the reservoir have not yet been completed but there is so far no evidence that it will not fulfil the purpose for which it was built.

Mr. Berry: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the capacity of this reservoir?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question.

Cost of Living and Wages

Dr. Santo Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the figures for


the increases in the cost of living and wages in the various West Indian Colonies.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the answer includes a long tabular statement, I pro-

Colony
Cost of living indices



December 1944
December 1945
March 1946
June 1946
September 1946
December 1946


Bahamas
1939=100
196
(192)
—
—
284
—


Barbados.
1939=100
185
194
196
200
215
222


British Guiana
1938=100
159
161
170
172
176
—


British Honduras
1939=100
160
162
167
169
198
(197)


Jamaica
1939=100
160
159
158
164
(170)
—


Leeward Islands









Antigua
1939=100
166
162
161
161
166
172


Montserrat
1939=100
184
179
184
183
189
192


St Kitts
1939=100
175
172
171
174
179
179


Virgin Is
1939=100
—
170
170
175
180
180


Windward Islands









Dominica
1939=100
170
170
—
176
187
—


Grenada
1939=100
179
181
182
182
—
—


St Lucia
1939=100
183
166
179
185
194
—


St Vincent
1939=100
181
190
190
189
201
(202)


Trinidad
1935=100
193
200
200
202
204
216


Note Figures in brackets apply to nearest month for which information is available e.g. (170) for Jamaica in September, 1946, is actually the figure for August. 1946 Where there are blanks in the table the relevant figures are not available

Temporary additions to wages to meet increased cost-of-living have been made and some details are given in my reply to another question by my hon. Friend on today's paper. Some employers, either by agreement with trade unions or by managerial decision, have introduced bonuses on a sliding scale related to the official cost-of-living index; others have granted temporary bonuses which are adjusted periodically on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the cost-of-living index is worked out on the same archaic system as we have in this country. or on a more realistic basis?

Mr. Creech-Jones: The experience of this country is not being ignored, but, in many of the Colonies, they have built up their own cost-of-living index.

Labour Conditions

Dr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies having regard to the recent disturbances in the West Indian

pose, with my hon. Friend's permission. to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The increases in the cost of living in the West Indian Colonies are shown in the following table:

Colonies, to what extent the conditions of the labouring population have improved since the date of the Report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply must be a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission. circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The information given in the reply, which has been compiled at very short notice, is, to some extent, supplementary to that contained in the statement of the action taken on the recommendations of the Royal Commission which was presented to Parliament in June, 1945.

Following is the reply

Barbados

There has been material improvement in conditions and wages. The working day has, in most cases, been reduced to eight hours, and thereafter, in commerce, overtime rates prevail Except where work is casual, most employers now give ten days or two weeks' holiday with ray annually Wages have risen steadily, and the following are estimated percentage increases on the plantations since 1939: Cultivation, 190. Reaping, 2oo. The percentage increase in manufacture is 127.

A Trades Union Act was passed in 1939, and there are now four workers' organisations. The Barbados Workers Union, and its counterpart for commerce, the Shipping and Mercantile Association, have already negotiated 13 agreements this year. Legislation has been enacted governing the employment of women, young persons and children in industry, arbitration in industrial disputes, hours and conditions of employment of shop assistants and workmen's compensation (including agricultural workers and domestic servants). Two social welfare officers have been appointed, and Barbados Welfare Limited, a non-profit making welfare department, has been formed to assist the workers in the development of home life and co-operative development of home industries and handicrafts, and to encourage the growth of a better community spirit. A Director of Education was appointed in 1943, and there has been a complete overhaul of the education system. Housing for working-class people has been in the forefront of social questions. A survey of slum areas has been made, and a housing site of just under 250 acres purchased for a proposed housing scheme

British Guiana

Legislation has been introduced covering workmen's compensation, conditions of employment of women, young persons and children, dangerous trades, recruitment of workers, trade unions, employment exchanges, hours of work in shops, licensed premises, bakeries and markets. Legislation is under consideration for a comprehensive factories Bill, improvements to the workmen's compensation ordinance and for the registration of contracts. A fair wages clause was recently introduced into all Government contracts.

The Trade Union Ordinance has been amended to prevent actions in tort against unions, to define a trade dispute, to make lawful acts of picketing within certain conditions, and, generally, to bring the ordinance into line with United Kingdom legislation. Membership of trade unions has increased considerably, and there has been a steady growth of reliance by both workers and employers upon the assistance of the Labour Department in settling disputes.

The activities of the Social Welfare Department have been directed towards the organisation of co-operative societies, the encouragement of cottage industries in rural areas, and the promotion of community life generally A non-contributory old age pension scheme has been established. Outdoor relief under poor law has been increased.

Taking 1939 as 100, the index of average daily earnings for resident male piece workers in the sugar industry has risen to, approximately, 220. Basic rates for unskilled men in sugar factories have been established, carrying a war bonus of 30 per cent., together with a reduction in hours. Bauxite wages have increased by about 23 per cent. Wages of subordinate Government employees have increased by 25 per cent., and wages generally in all industries have been increased to a similar extent.

British Honduras.

Three trade unions have been registered since 1941, and in 1945 a Labour Advisory Board was appointed. The establishment of a Whitley Council for civil servants is under consideration. A Factories Ordinance was passed in 1942, and workmen's compensation was introduced in 1943.

Jamaica.

Legislation has been enacted covering the registration and inspection of factories, slum clearance and housing, the protection of dock workers against accidents, and the restriction of hours of employment of women; and making provision for the health and safety of women employed in industrial undertakings. Membership of trade unions has increased from 8,500 in 1939 to 57,700 in 1946.

As regards social services, the following figures, showing increases in annual Government expenditure on public health and public education, give some indication of the progress effected: Health, 1938–39 £104,887; 1946–47 £663,903 Education, 1938–39 £266,000; 1946–47 £705, 557

The considerable rise in labour wages rates is indicated by the following figures, showing increases for different categories of labour over the 1938 rates. General labour: men 6o per cent. to TOO per cent.; general labour women 60 per cent. to 220 per cent.; port workers, 167 per cent to 187 per cent.; sugar cultivation, 88 per cent. Other agricultural work 20 per cent. to 100 per cent.

Leeward Islands.

Since 1939, legislation has been enacted covering trade unions, trades disputes, recruitment of workers, employment of children, minimum wages and workmen's compensation.

The Antigua Trade and Labour Union claims 12,000 members in a total population of 42,00o. Its representatives hold all the elected seats on the Legislative Council Union members in St. Kitts and Montserrat also hold elected seats on the Legislative Councils. In Antigua, a 45-hour week is now generally recognised, and the principle of holidays with pay has been agreed to.

In St. Kitts, holidays with pay are granted by the Government and by the sugar factory; extension to estate labour is under consideration, and the principle of an eight-hour day is generally accepted.

Since 1939, piece work wages on sugar estates in Antigua have been increased more than threefold, and the daily rate of pay for unskilled labour has risen from 1s 3d. to 4s. 2½d. In St. Kitts, piece rates on sugar estates have been more than doubled.

As regards social services, there is a large programme in education, public health, peasant settlement, etc.

Trinidad.

The Trade Disputes (Protection of Property) Ordinance, 1943, provides, inter alia, for the legal recognition of peaceful picketing, and confers immunity to trade unions from actions in tort. The Workmen's Compensation


(Amendment) Ordinance, 1945, brought with in the scope of the principal ordinance, among other groups of workpeople, those employed in agricultural holdings of not less than 30 acres, domestic servants other than those employed in private houses, and persons employed exclusively as clerical workers and/or shop assistants. It also provided for a reduction of the waiting period from ten to three days, and for increased compensation in cases of death or permanent total disablement.

The Factories Ordinance, 1946, based on the U.K. Factories Act, 1937, provided for the industrial safety of workers, and the establishment of an inspectorate. The Ordinance will be proclaimed as soon as the necessary regulations have been drafted. Regulations made under the Labour Bureau Ordinance provide for the extension of Labour Bureau facilities to eleven additional centres in the Colony.

The following comparative table shows increases in the level of wage rates in the principal industries since 1939:

(a) Oil

1939

Skilled 11–28 cents per hour;

Semi-skilled 11–22 cents per hour;

Unskilled 11–26 cents per hour.

1947.

Skilled 33–47 cents per hour;

Semi-skilled 28–33 cents per hour;

Unskilled 26–29 cents pet hour.

(Including a temporary war allowance).

(b) Government Employees

Skilled and semi-skilled 88 cents to 2 dollars per day 1.44–2.56 dollars plus 46–53 cents (TWA) = 1.90–3.09 dollars per day;

Unskilled 60–72 cents per day 1.00 dollars plus 42 cents (TWA) = 1.48 dollars per day.

(c) Dock Labour

Stevedores 2 00 dollars per day 2.40 dollars plus 88 cents (TWA) = 3.28 dollars per day;

Shore labour 1.44 dollars per day 2.20 dollars plus 51 cents (TWA) = 2.71 dollars per day.

(d) Agriculture

Sugar (task work). Average daily earnings, 1939 and 1947;

Cutlassing, 40–50 cents and 55–180 cents;

Reaping 50–75 cents and 75–220 cents;

Draining, 60—go cents and 85–252 cents.

(Note.—Earnings depend largely on the amount of time which the worker is willing to put in.)

Cocoa and coconuts. Average daily earnings 1939 and 1947:

Cutlassing, 40–60 cents and 80–120 cents;

Pruning (cocoa) 50–75 cents and 12o-250 cents.

Hours of work.—The working week of oil shift workers has been reduced from 56 to 48 hours. The working day for port labour has been reduced from 9 to 8 hours. The hours of sugar time workers, with the exception of stock attendants, essential services employees and watchmen, have been reduced to 8 per day.

Leave. Oil. Leave privileges have been made cumulative for two years. Government; seven days' leave has been extended to ten days in cases of two and three years' service. and 14 days after four years' service. Sick leave at seven days per year has been introduced. Sugar; seven days' vacation leave, annually has been introduced. An industrial relations joint consultative committee has been established in the sugar industry, and a joint conciliation board in the oil industry. In certain Government Departments, works committees have been set up.

Social Services.

Co-operative groups, ranging from thrift and study clubs to registered credit unions and agricultural co-operative societies, have been promoted in nearly every part of the Colony, and have taken firm root. A cottage industries programme (straw and allied materials) is just beginning to take shape as an economic factor.

The Planning and Housing Commission have completed the construction of 1.199 houses on housing settlements in the Colony, and work on the preparation of additional building sites is in progress. One hundred and twelve buildings have been erected in the towns of Port of Spain and San Fernando in connection with slum clearance housing schemes; 62 more are under construction. Two rural housing schemes are in course of construction in the sugar areas of the Colony. Oilfields housing estates have been developed Improvements have been made in the provision of hostel accommodation for young workers in Port of Spain. Government expenditure on housing and slum clearance for the period of 1942–46 was 5 130,000 dollars compared with 300.000 dollars in the previous five years.

Inexpensive medical facilities have become more widely available to the labouring population, especially infant welfare and maternity and hospital care. Health Centres have been established in main rural areas and more are in course of construction. Venereal Diseases centre with clinics, both urban and rural, provide free treatment for all. Special measures have been taken against hookworm infestation by means of a health education campaign and by clinical treatment Anti-malarial measures have been continued. A feature of work in 1946 is the use of D.D.T. as a house insecticide on a large scale.

Windward Islands.

In Grenada, an agreement between planter employers and trade unions established as from 21st October. 1946, minimum wage rates of three shillings for men and two shillings and sixpence for women, for an eight-hour day.

In St. Lucia, legislation as from 1st November, 1946, raised minimum wages to two shillings and sixpence for men and two shillings


for women for an eight-hour day. All minimum wage rates for shop assistants and clerks were raised approximately 29 per cent. from that date.

In Dominica and St. Vincent, negotiations are proceeding with view to the upward revision of existing minimum wage rates in those Colonies.

Social services have received special attention since 1942 through the appointment of a Social Welfare Adviser.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL STUDENTS, UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are made by his Department for the hostel accommodation, welfare and education supervision of students from the Colonies in this country.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Welfare Department of the Colonial Office, under the direction of the Director of Colonial Scholars, is especially charged with the welfare and supervision of students from the Colonies studying in the U.K. and at Dublin. It is impossible to answer my hon. Friend's Question fully within the limits of an Oral Reply, and I am, therefore, circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Skinnard: Will my right hon. Friend discourage the practice of having hostels for students of one Colony only, as it defeats the purpose for which the scheme was intended?

Mr. Creech Jones: The whole problem of accommodation in this country is very difficult, and some of the hostels are for Colonial students only, but we are anxious, where we can, to get mixed hostels for the purpose of avoiding this segregation.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department are considering with the Service Departments facilities for airmen and others over here from the Colonies who are undergoing training, owing to the closing of so many hostels which were open during the war?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. The Welfare Department has that matter in mind as regards some of the arrangements in the provinces.

Following is the statement:

Welfare Organisation:

1. There is an extensive organisation for the welfare of people from the Colonies in the United Kingdom. The Welfare Department of the Colonial Office deals not only with students but with all classes of men and women belonging to the Colonies, e.g., persons serving in the Armed Forces, civilian war worker during the war and merchant seamen.

2. The Welfare Department is in charge of an officer formerly of the Colonial Administrative Service in Africa and is staffed partly by regular members of the Colonial Office staff and partly by temporary staff drawn from the Colonies themselves. The head of the Department is also Director of Colonial Scholars and is responsible for the welfare of colonial students in the widest sense. The welfare of Government scholars and scholars sponsored by such organisations as the Nuffield Foundation naturally has the first call on the time of the Director but in practice his department takes a keen interest in and renders every possible help to all private students coming here under their own arrangements, whose presence in this country is known to the Welfare Department.

3. Before the arrival of students who come here with the recommendation of their local students advisory committees and directors of education, the Director of Colonial Scholar's examines their academic qualifications and arranges for their admission to suitable universities and other institutions. Such students are met on arrival, accommodation is provided, ration books and clothing coupons arranged for, etc. Accommodation in the first place is usually arranged in one of our hostels where the student can get advice as to conditions in this country. Later suitable lodgings are found for him if it is not possible for him to be accommodated in the University or College or one of their Halls of Residence.

4. The Director of Colonial Scholars administers all financial arrangements for Government scholars, and if requested to do so, for private students also. Payment of College fees, scholarship allowances, cost of medicall treatment where necessary are authorised by the Welfare Department.

5. The Governments of the Gold Coast, Nigeria, Malaya and Hong Kong have all appointed their own liaison officers. These officers who have all had many years service in the particular Colony they represent are responsible under the general direction of the Director of Colonial Scholars for the personal wellbeing of the student. A special woman liaison officer has been appointed for women students from West Africa. The liaison officer visits the student in his place of education and satisfies himself or herself that the course of study is suitable to the individual's capacity; that his lodgings are comfortable and generally that he is happy.

6. Efforts are being made to find private homes where the student can be invited to spend some of his vacation. Owing to the obvious difficulties of rationing and lack at domestic help this is not very easy to arrange but progress is being made and there was a gratifying response to an appeal made at Christmastime for offers of private hospitality to


be made to Colonial students. The assistance and collaboration of unofficial bodies such is the Victoria League and others is most valuable

7. In addition to the Department there is a permanent Advisory Committee on the Welfare of Colonial People in the United Kingdom of which the chairman, ex officio, is the Parlia mentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies The committee consists mainly of persons not holding official positions, but comprises also members of the Colonial Office staff who are specially concerned with welfare matters

8 The Weltare Department also maintains regional offices in Edinburgh, Liverpool and Cardiff and a regional officer in London, with regional advisory committees in Liverpool and Cardiff It is proposed also shortly to appoint a regional advisory committee in the East End of London.

9 HOSTEL ACCOMMODATION

(A) Hostels for students administered directly by the Colonial Office

LONDON

Colonial Centre 15–16 Collingham Gardens. Earls Court S.W 5–62 beds
Colonial Centre Annex. 36, Tavistock Square. W C.1–24 beds
Colonial Students' Club, 8, 10 &amp; 14 Hallem Street. W 1–26 beds now in use

EDINBURGH

Colonial House, 2, Palmerston Road; Annexes, 13. Palmerston Road and 36. Hope Terrace-31 beds

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

Colonial Students' Hostel 40, Leazes Terrace —10 beds

(B) Hostels for students administered behalf of Colonial Office

Nutford House. Nutford Place, Marble Arch W.1–129 beds

Colonial Girls Club, 18, Collingham Gardens. Earls Court S.W 5–27 beds

(C) Hostels for students in which the Colonial Office have an indirect interest

BIRMINGHAM.

The University. Overseas Centre, Georgian House, 9–10 Easy Row

Under the auspices of the University of Birmingham, the British Council and the Colonial Office. The administration of the Club rests with the British Council There are 15 beds.

GLASGOW.

Glasgow University authorities are adapting Horselethill House for use as a university hall of residence The Colonial Office is to contribute £5,000 towards the expenditure involved on the understanding that 50 per cent. of the available accommodation will be allocated to Colonial students

(D) Future hostel plans for students.

Additional hostel accommodation is proposed En London, Edinburgh, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Leeds, Glasgow, Cardiff and Dublin.

10. These hostels are intended primarily as reception centres where students may go on their first arrival in this country and where they way stay until they find more permanent

quarters It is the general policy of the Colonial Office that wherever possible, students from the Colonies should live and work on the same conditions as students in this country rather than be segregated into permanent hostels of their own

EDUCATION SUPERVISION OF STUDENTS

11. There are at the present time in this country 853 Government scholars (including Nuffield Foundation and British Council, etc.), 1,332 private students known to the Welfare Department and 725 members of the Colonial Forces or civilian war workers temporarily undertaking vocational training The course of education to be followed by the student is selected in the first place by the Director of Education in the Colony A certificate as to the scholar's diligence and conduct is submitted to the Director of Colonial Scholars at the end of each term and a fuller report on the scholar's work and progress is obtained and forwarded to the Colony at the end of the academic year If it appears that the course is unsuitable for some reason, recommendations are made by the Director of Colonial Scholars to the Director of Education in the Colony

12. Close touch is kept with the Colonial Governments with regard to their students and the Director of Colonial Scholars is on tour at the present time in West Africa to discuss all aspects of student welfare with the Colonial Governments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Kedah Scheme

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in order to assist Malay farmers in Malaya and to stabilise their economy, he will introduce the Kedah Scheme for rural industries to other States.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am advised by the Governor of the Malayan Union that there are certain features of the Kedah Scheme which he considers could profitably be adopted in other Malay States, and he is arranging with the resident commissioners to consider details, in consultation with the Directors of Agriculture, Co-operation and Commerce and Industry.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he will stabilise the economy of the Malay farmers?

Mr. Creech Jones: That question does not arise.

Rice Black Market, Singapore

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that the housewife in Singapore is Still paying approximately eight times


the controlled price for halt her main foodstuff, namely, rice, what steps he is taking to smash the black market.

Mr. Creech Jones: Though the rice ration in Singapore is admittedly inadequate, a supplementary flour ration is available, and it is not the case that recourse to the black market by the housewife is essential. Apart from bulk importing and controlling the distribution of the major portion of rice which is consumed locally, vigorous action is taken by the Government to overcome the black market including the confiscation of illegal imports and the prosecution of offenders against the Food and Price Control Proclamations. It will, however, be appreciated that, so long as the present difficult supply situation persists, complete eradication of the black market necessarily presents a difficult task.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called black market is the unofficial market and a corruption due to the Government's complete failure to provide surplus rice in Siam, and that the only means left to the good employer, in order to supplement the meagre Government ration of five ounces a day, is to use this market, which is well known and is not discouraged by the Government?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am astonished that the hon. Member, after his recent visit to Malaya, should rise and make such suggestions.

Mr. Rees-Williams: In view of the fact that the content of this Question has been widely published in Malaya will the Minister make known to the Press of Malaya his answer today, together with the evidence upon which be based it?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, certainty.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only way to overcome the black market in Singapore, as elsewhere, is to tree the economy of the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (TAXATION)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what heads taxation is levied in Malta; and if any rates are imposed for local government purposes.

Mr. Creech Jones: The heads Under which taxation is levied in Malta are customs, harbour and quarantine duties, licences, stamp and other duties, of which the most important are succession and donation and entertainment duties. There are no rates, as the Government of Malta provide from the proceeds of general taxation services of the type which would in this country be provided by local authorities.

Mr. Reid: Is it not time to impose on Malta. which is soon to get self-government, Income Tax and other forms of taxation?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think that my hon. Friend is aware that proposals will shortly be introduced in Malta for direct taxation.

Brigadier Mackeson: Would it not be better to allow the Maltese to decide that matter for themselves?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is precisely what we are doing.

Mr. Stokes: Now that we have quite an enlightened Governor in Malta, it not more than probable that he will produce  thorough-going tax on site values?

Oral Answers to Questions — SARAWAK (MR. A. BROOKE)

Mr. William Teeing: asked the Secretary of State for the. Colonies why the Undesirable Persons Order existing in Sarawak, and which did not apply to a servant or subject of His Highness the Rajah, was used to prevent Mr. Anthony Brooke from entering Sarawak; on what day Mr. Brooke left England; and when was this Order altered and for what purpose.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Order was used for the reasons I gave the hon. Member on 19th December. I am advised that Mr. Brooke was not exempt from its provisions. I understand that he left this country of 6th December. The principal Order was amended by an Ordinance passed by the Council Negri on 3rd December in two respects, the first to amend a description of persons excluded from the Order which had become meaningless with the cession of Sarawak, and the second to correct an apparent oversight in the principal Order.

Mr. Teeling: Does not the Minister agree that this Order did not apply to Mr. Brooke, and that. in actual fact, the Order


was deliberately altered to include him; and, further, will the right hon. Gentleman assure this House that, in future, 'British subjects travelling on legitimate business to the Colonies will not have Orders altered to prevent them entering?

Mr. Creech Jones: The assumptions of the hon. Member are completely wrong. For his information, Mr. Brooke gave us notice that he would probably go to Sarawak on 4th November, but, if the hon. Member will turn up the Sarawak Government Gazette, he will there find, on 1st November, the amending Bill printed.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that it would have been far better for all concerned if a decision had been made before Mr. Brooke left England that it was undesirable for him to enter Sarawak, rather han later, and after he had half completed his journey?

Mr. Creech Jones: The answer is, of course, that we did not know he was leaving the country, because the representations which had previously been made to us stated that he was taking a certain route which, in fact, he did not take.

Mr. Gallacher: Could the Minister say why no hon. Members opposite protested when I was refused permission to go to India?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (BRITISH SUBJECTS, EVACUATION)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement as to the circumstances in which British people in Palestine were, on evacuation, brought to the refugees camp at Maadi; and what are the conditions, of which an instance has been sent to him, prevailing there now.

Mr. Creech Jones: Arrangements were made by the military authorities in consultation with the Government of Palestine for a number of British subjects evacuated from Palestine to be temporarily accommodated in Egypt at Maadi Camp. The majority wish to come to the United Kingdom. Some are being given passages on ships coming from the Middle East, and a ship is being sent from this Country for the, remainder, who should arrive here early in March. Conditions in

the camp were not satisfactory during the first few days, but they have since been considerably improved, and the latest report indicates that the present arrangements are as good as the situation and nature of the camp permit. All necessary amenities, including special foods for young children, facilities for recreation, social activities, etc. have been provided and I am quite sure that everything possible is being done for the welfare of the evacuees.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY (RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister, if he will make a special appeal to both workers and employers to suspend all restrictive practices and work longer hours for six months after the coal crisis ends, in order to make up the lost production.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have no doubt that, on full resumption of work, there will be a universal desire to make up for lost production, and I am quite confident that workers and employers can be relied on, in the country's interest, to take such steps as are necessary to this end. But each industry must be allowed to decide for itselt, having in mind its own special circumstances, how this is to be most speedily and efficiently accomplished.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Prime Minister aware that in North Lincolnshire quite recently—in fact, in the last few days—20 bricklayers employed by a Socialist peer have asked that all bonuses shall be stopped because the trade unions—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not asking a question; he is making an imputation. as well as giving information.

Mr. Awbery: Would the right hon. Gentleman express the appreciation of this House to the miners, the dockers, and the railwaymen for their splendid efforts last weekend to help us out?

Mr. Osborne: On a point of Order. I hope that you will not think I am being impertinent, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to ask for your direction Surely, I am entitled to put this very important point that, in my own part of the country, the trade unions are not allowing the men to produce as much as they wish?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is still asking the same question.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Mr. Speaker, has it been laid down that it is an imputation upon anybody to say that he is a Socialist peer?

Mr. Speaker: I think hon. Members can answer that question for themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL EMERGENCY (UNEMPLOYMENT PAY)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make arrangements for employers who pay their employees their wages for the guaranteed minimum week, although they are not working on account of the present fuel crisis, to receive the amount of the unemployment pay which would otherwise be paid to such employees.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the hardship created by the widespread unemployment as a result of the fuel crisis, he will intro duce emergency measures authorising the payment of additional allowances to those in receipt of unemployment benefit in order to make their total money up to that of their basic wage.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am confident that we can rely on our system of unemployment insurance and allied social services together with the good will of employers to meet the present situation.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in order to keep their teams of workers together, many employers have offered to supplement unemployment pay in order to bring it up to the guaranteed weekly wage, and will he encourage this patriotic and useful action?

Mr. Bowles: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that I put this Question down to him because I felt it is most important? In view of the fact that it is quite an exceptional crisis, and that the workers will suffer unless this suggestion is accepted, although there may be legalistic reasons for not doing so in this case, could he possibly see his way to reconsider the matter?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend will discuss this matter with my colleagues the Minister of National Insurance and

the Minister of Labour, he will understand all the implications and difficulties involved.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman view with apprehension this capitalist suggestion from his supporters?

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend consider making the reasons for this decision known to the public as a whole, because this matter is being closely watched by hundreds of thousands of workers?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what is the weekly cost to the unemployment fund of the present situation?

The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Deserters (Surrender)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Defence, approximately, how many of the 20,000 deserters, then at large in the United Kingdom, have responded to his recommendation of 22nd January that they should surrender voluntarily.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Defence the number of deserters who have surrendered voluntarily in response to his appeal made on 22nd January, how many have been sentenced; and what was the average sentence.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The number of deserters who surrendered voluntarily between 23rd January and the latest date for which figures are available is: Army, 294; Navy, 58; Air Force, 40. One hundred and twenty-six of these men have already been sentenced. Sentences vary from one day's to two years' detention, and the confirming officer has power to suspend the sentence in whole or in part if there are strong mitigating circumstances. Substantial use is being made of this power. I would also remind my hon. Friends that machinery exists fur the periodic review of these sentences. In the majority of cases, therefore, the sentence actually served will he much shorter than that imposed.

Mr. Driberg: In view of this rather disappointing total response, could my right hon. Friend say whether the number


has tended to increase or decrease as the weeks have gone by, and also whether he is satisfied that his original offer was presented to the public in sufficiently detailed and definite form?

Mr. Alexander: I think last week's figures are much the best of the weeks which have intervened since the original statement. I hope, therefore, the figures will very much improve in the future, especially as the actual experience of those who have surrendered will become more widely known. It may have been, perhaps, that the statement as broadcast to the public through the Press might have been in rather more detail, but I think the supplementary information which has since been given is now widely known.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend make it clear that family allowances are paid to the dependants of the men while in detention, because that may act as an incentive to deserters to give themselves up?

Mr. Alexander: That statement has been widely broadcast quite separately from the others.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Could that information be exhibited on public notice boards, for instance, at town halls?

Captain Marsden: Is it wise to say in advance that whatever sentences are imposed by those who constitute the personnel of courts martial will be automatically reduced?

Mr. Alexander: I have not actually said that at all.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the. cases of men who gave themselves up before this statement was made, and draw the attention of the people who review the sentences to the fact that the sentences of these men should be brought into line with the more recent cases?

Mr. Alexander: That Question is already on the Paper, and I shall be answering it in due course.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the apparent failure of this offer, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of a general amnesty for these offenders?

Mr. Alexander: It must not be taken by the House that all opinion on this

matter is by any means on one side. I get very many representations from men who are still serving and who feel they are being held in the Forces because of deserters, and also that they have served well while the others have not.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Defence whether deserters who surrendered voluntarily before his statement on 22nd January will be eligible for the same concessions as those who surrender after that date.

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend consider, where applicable, suspending sentences immediately, which would allow less staff to be used at detention camps and would release men for more useful military service?

Mr. Alexander: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and each of the Departments concerned will do this as rapidly as possible, but I think hon. Members will agree that all cases must be dealt with on their individual merits.

Land Requirements

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of Defence. to what extent the Inter-Services Committee, in considering future requirements of training areas, are informed of the amount and types of training to be carried out; and when this information will be made fully available so as to permit the speedy release of land required for other purposes.

Mr. Alexander: Full information about the training requirements in each area is supplied to the Inter-Departmental Committee. The work of the Committee is proceeding as rapidly as possible. In the meantime, any land found surplus to requirements is released at the earliest possible moment. There has been unavoidable delay in some cases due to the necessity for clearance of unexploded missiles.

Post-war Casualties

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Defence the numbers of Forces personnel in all three Services who lost their lives between VE-Day and V J-Day; and from VJ-Day to the nearest available date.

Mr. Alexander: I will, with permission, circulate figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following are the details:


Deaths from all causes (officers and men)



V.E.-Day to V.J.-Day
V.J.-Day to 31/1/47


Royal Navy
796
1,520


Army
4,518
22,404*


Royal Air Force
1,541
2,854


* Includes figures for period 1/8/45 to 14 / 8 / 45 which cannot without considerable difficulty be separated.

Strengths

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now give the approximate strengths of the British Forces at present maintained in the United Kingdom, on the mainland of Europe including Greece, in the Near and Middle East including Palestine and in the Far East, respectively, in view of the decision at U.N.O. to take a census of all troops.

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. It would be contrary to the general interest to give this information at the present time.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr Byrnes gave exact details of dispositions and numbers of all American troops overseas to the United Nations Assembly on 13th December, and Should we not do the same? Would my right hon. Friend also explain how this House can form an intelligent opinion on the necessity for keeping the vast Forces we have abroad, if it does not know where those troops are?

Mr. Alexander: The United Nations organisation have not decided to take a census of all troops as is inferred in the Question. The Assembly have merely called upon the Security Council to determine what information on this point will be required. The release of the information now would be to anticipate action by the United Nations, and I am unable, therefore, to give that information at present.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does my right hon. Friend mean to say that this House is not entitled to information as to where our troops are situated?

Mr. Alexander: I have been in the House just about the same length of time as my hon. Friend. A Government must always be prepared to say, even to the House, that it ought not to give certain information if it is not in the public interest to do so.

Eire Citizens (Service Departments)

Mr. Cobb: asked the Minister of Defence how many of the 104 citizens of Eire employed by the Service Departments in Northern Ireland are ex-Service men and women; and how many of the latter have either served during wartime, or are disabled or partly disabled due to war service.

Mr. Alexander: The total number of Eire citizens employed by the Service Departments in Northern Ireland is now 101. Of these, 30 men and one woman have served in the Forces; 28 during wartime. Three men are disabled as a result of war service.

Mr. Cobb: In the event of redundancy arising in the Crown Services in Northern Ireland, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the question of these people's services in the Armed Forces, in deciding which of them should be discharged and which should receive preference?

Mr. Alexander: I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the Service Minister dealing with the question.

Sir Ronald Ross: Did any of these 31 serve in the present war, and, as regards the 7o who are neutrals and innocent of any combatant service in either war, is the right hon. Gentleman still going to give them priority in employment over ex-Servicemen who volunteered from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Alexander: I have nothing to add to my previous answer the other day on that point.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring it to the notice of the Minister of Supply who gave an answer directly contradicting it the other day?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that the number of those from the South of Ireland who have actually served in the last war represents only a small proportion of those thousands who volunteered and contributed very much indeed to our common victory?

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his reply that the rule of 3 per cent. of ex-Service disabled men does not apply in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.

Mr. Mulvey: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of Southern Ireland residents engaged in Service Departments in Northern Ireland rendered signal service during the war years, and that at the conclusion of the war these people were denied residence permits and renewals of residence permits, while further employment was still available in Northern Ireland for them?

"End of Hostilities" Personnel

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the unexpectedly long time that it is taking to conclude the state of war still technically existing between the United Kingdom and Germany, he will give those officers and men who opted to serve until the end of hostilities an opportunity to be demobilised forthwith.

Mr. Alexander: I assume the hon. Member is referring to officers and men of the Army who undertook to defer their release, until general demobilisation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is looking into the matter, with a view to fixing the appropriate time for release in such cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Fish Trade Licences

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food on what principle he acts in granting preferred cases licences to trade in white fish.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given on 29th January to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Hughes: Would the hon. Lady say how a priority is established between these applicants; is it by percentage of disability or otherwise?

Dr. Summerskill: In every case my Department consult with the Ministry of Labour, and where it is considered that an applicant cannot obtain a livelihood in any other way he is given a licence.

Mr. Walkden: Does my hon. Friend recall the fact that there was no licensing of fish shops before the war, and that there is a more plentiful supply of fish today; and can she give one valid reason why we should continue the licensing of fish shops at all?

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the manpower position has changed; at the moment transport is difficult; and, primarily, during the winter months there is still a shortage.

Mr. Walkden: But what has that to do with the licensing of fish shops? [HON. MEMBERS: Answer."] I press the point.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bossom. Mr. Medland.

Mr. Bossom: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I get rather tired of calling out hon. Members' names. I called the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) several times, and I have passed over hon. Members who have not risen.

Mr. Bossom: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear, as there was a certain amount of noise in the House.

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the existing system of inspection in slaughterhouses is sufficient to prevent cruelty to the animals.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. Each slaughterhouse is in charge of a manager, a whole-time employee of the Ministry, who is responsible for seeing that the animals are properly dealt with.

Mr. Bossom: Is it not a fact that there is terrific congestion in these slaughterhouses at the present time; and cannot the Minister look into this, because I am afraid that if she had reviewed the situation thoroughly she would not have given me the answer she has just read out?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of any specific case in which there is alleged cruelty, I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Teeling: Is not the hon. Lady aware that there is very strong feeling on this subject all over the country?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the hon. Lady's reply to be taken as equivalent to saying she believes there is no cruelty in slaughterhouses in this country?

Dr. Summerskill: There is not widespread cruelty. I repeat, I am prepared


to look into any case. It is quite impossible for me to reassure the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), who has put down a Question of this kind before, unless he gives me the details.

Mr. Bossom: Is not the Minister responsible for this, and do hon. Members have to tell him when he is wrong?

Dr. Summerskill: I understand that is the duty of the Opposition.

Cattle Markets (Cruelty)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food how many cattle markets are under the supervision of each inspector; and if he is satisfied that no avoidable cruelty is inflicted.

Dr. Summerskill: The enforcement of the law relating to cruelty to animals is a matter for the police, but I am satisfied that all our officials are concerned to ensure that the animals for which they are responsible are properly handled. The Government buyer in charge of each collecting centre is a livestock auctioneer, and the grading of the stock is supervised by 42 inspectors, who are each responsible for from 20 to 66 centres. There are also three headquarters inspectors who visit the centres as may be required.

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister state how often the inspector visits each of these points?

Dr. Summerskill: I have to remind the hon. Member that many of these points are opened only once a fortnight, or once a month. I believe there is one inspector in charge of 66 centres; 35 of these centres operate once a fortnight, and 10 operate once a month.

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister say how many of these markets are opened only once a fortnight?

Dr. Summerskilt: Certainly, if the hon. Member puts down a Question.

Mr. E. P. Smith: What percentages of visits are paid?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question I will tell him.

Potato Supplies

Mr. Medland: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the shortage of potatoes in the

city of Plymouth, and the consequent addition to the worries of the housewife; and what steps he is taking to remedy this state of affairs.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. Some of the Ministry's accessible reserves are being I used to meet the most urgent needs; but the resumption of more normal supplies is dependent upon the weather, which has seriously hindered movement off farms and shipments from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Medland: Is my hon. Friend aware that unless immediate steps are taken there will be no supplies at all this weekend?

Mr. Butcher: Can the hon. Lady explain why, till we had the present Ministry of Food, there was always a supply of potatoes, no matter what the weather?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman, should know that a change of Government-has made no difference to keeping. potatoes in clamps.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that seed potatoes are now being sold for immediate consumption; that this is likely to affect the harvest next year; and what steps is she taking to prevent it?

Dr. Summerskill: That is another question.

Mr. Medland: Will my hon. Friend tell me what she proposes to do about this business?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly. The Ministry have reserves which are kept in barns, and we are ensuring that these reserves are sent to those who have priority needs.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the shortage of potatoes in this country and the existing surplus of potatoes in the U.S.A., what steps have been taken to import potatoes into this country from the U.S.A. during the past three months and what has prevented a greater importation than has taken place.

Dr. Summerskill: No potatoes have been imported from the United States in the past three months, owing to the prevalence of bacterial ring-rot, a disease unknown here. For this reason I have reluctantly decided that for the present we should not arrange any importation.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Lady aware that one of the reasons for the shortage of potatoes at the present time is that, owing to the shortage of labour, there are many thousands of acres of potatoes still not lifted; and will she consult with her colleague the Minister of Labour to see that that position does not arise in regard to the harvest of 1947?

Mr. Langford-Holt: Does the hon. Lady really mean that the disease is unknown here; or does she mean it is not experienced here?

Dr. Summerskill: Not experienced here.

Wheat Milling

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food how much home-grown wheat was delivered to the flour mills in January as compared with the two previous months.

Dr. Summerskill: The total amount of home-grown wheat delivered to mills in the five weeks ended 1st February was 220,000 tons. The amounts for the four weeks ended 28th December and 30th November were 88,000 tons and 112,000 tons respectively.

Mr. Hurd: Does not the Minister consider this a very satisfactory response to the Government's. request for increased threshing?

Dr. Summerskill: Very.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he is continuing the relaxation in the quality standards for millable wheat allowed in January, in order to induce increased deliveries to the mills.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. Wheat containing up to 50 per cent. of sprouted grains will continue to be accepted by flour millers if it is otherwise sound.

Points Capital (Confectionery Shop)

Mr. Gage: asked the Minister of Food what personal points capital has been allocated by his Department to Fruit Stores, Limited, Empire House, 5, Great Newport Street, London, W.C.2, for the sale of confectionery at their shop in York Road Station, Belfast.

Dr. Summerskill: Fruit Stores, Limited, was granted personal points credit for the kiosk at York Road Station, Belfast, comparable to that of similar businesses in the neighbourhood.

Coupons (Validity)

Captain Marsden: asked the Minister of Food if he will arrange that all food coupons issued for February be available for a further period in view of the difficulties experienced by housewives in obtaining food under present conditions.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend announced yesterday, any food or soap coupons which were issued for the present rationing period, and which have not been used before the period ends, will be valid at any time during the next rationing period.

Captain Marsden: Is the hon. Lady aware that this immediate response by her Department to my Question will give much satisfaction?

Chick Coupons (Milk Powder)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food why he is refusing to issue supplies of milk powder against chick coupons.

Dr. Summerskill: We have not enough dried milk powder to issue it as a rationed feeding stuff against chick food coupons. The small quantities available for chick feeding are included in national baby chick food, which is one of the foods obtainable against these coupons, to secure as wide a distribution as practicable.

Mr. Macpherson: Would it not be possible for those who regularly mixed their own chick food in the past to obtain supplies of milk powder?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The supply is very limited, and the amount of milk powder in chick food is only 6 per cent. We give manufacturers an allocation, but we have not enough to distribute it generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP RATION

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that persons with an amputated leg who are permitted the extra ration of soap are obliged, when applying for additional supplies, to produce a certificate to the effect that the leg is off; and whether this formality will now be dispensed with.

Dr. Summerskill: I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member that no one with an amputated limb is required to produce a certificate before obtaining the extra ration of soap.

Mr. Janner: But will my hon. Friend look into the case in respect of which there has been some correspondence in the Press recently, in which the production of a certificate that the leg was still off was demanded?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the case of Mr. Russell —I believe his letter was in the "Daily Telegraph"—my Department have already looked into that case. I can assure him that no official in the local food office at Kensington has said that he asked for the certificate.

FUEL AND POWER CUTS (PARTIAL RELAXATION)

The Prime Minister: I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement on the fuel position.
The position has improved. In spite of the weather 3,747,700 tons of deep-mined and opencast coal was produced last week, which is 119,600 tons more than in the corresponding week a year ago. This reflects great credit on the miners. It is being moved by rail, sea and road, and stocks at power stations are slowly but steadily being built up. Those engaged in transport by rail, road and sea did very fine work, especially over the week-end, in moving a very large tonnage of coal under very hard conditions.
As I stated previously, it is the object of the Government to restore power for industrial production in each of the areas where it is now restricted at the earliest possible date. But the Government does not regard it as safe to do so until two weeks' stocks have been built up at the power stations in each area. The weather is still icy and the getting, loading and movement of coal is still difficult. The thaw, when it comes, may bring flood and fog.
If present restrictions on domestic and non-industrial use of electricity are rigidly maintained over the whole country, it is estimated that the consumption of coal at power stations controlled by the Central Electricity Board could be kept down to an average of 580,000 tons a week for the

rest of the winter. At this level of consumption the Government expects that in tile Central England area, i.e., the Midlands, it will be possible to provide all stations except three with two week's stocks by tomorrow. At the three stations there will be a minor deficiency which can be made up during the week ending 1st March.
This position having been reached in the Central Area, the Government feel justified in allowing a general resumption of the use of power by industry in that area as from Monday next.
I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the other two areas, but the position is under daily review and I will inform the House as soon as I can announce the dates for the resumption of the supply of electricity for industry in either of those areas. I must repeat that the resumption of industry depends on fully maintaining the present restrictions on the use of electricity by domestic and non-industrial consumers.
Industrial undertakings in the central area will need information as to the expected deliveries of solid fuel in order to make production plans for the immediate future. They may expect to receive during the first two weeks after resumption 30 per cent. of the allocations of solid fuel which were in force prior to 20th January. Those undertakings which immediately before the electricity cuts were receiving assistance from the regional pool may expect to receive supplies on the scale then arranged. In individual cases where there are exceptional stock levels adjustment will be made on this account.
In order to avoid a recurrence of the frequent and unpredictable load shedding necessitated by the national shortage of generating plant capacity, it is desirable to spread the industrial load as much as possible by staggering the hours of work. This may raise difficult problems, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service has arranged to meet representatives of the two sides of the National Joint Advisory Council later this afternoon to discuss these questions with them.
The increase in unemployment over the figures I gave last Thursday in the regions where the use of electricity for industrial purposes has been restricted is estimated at about 310,000. There has


been a net decrease of 230,000 in those unemployed who are not claiming unemployment insurance benefit. A comprehensive count of the insured persons registered as being unemployed is being taken today.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what reduction in coal consumption has been achieved since these cuts were imposed?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry I have not those figures with me, but I understand it is about 250,000.

Mr. Bowles: Can my right hon. Friend name the three places in the Midlands to which he referred and which are not going to be able to produce electricity for a little while longer? Will he consider the serious position arising from the shortage of generating plant, and ask the Government to consider stopping the export of generating plant for some years ahead?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give the names of those stations without notice. They are only just under the two weeks' supply, and they will be brought up to it. With regard to the other matter, the whole question has been very carefully gone into, but we have commitments in respect of the export of generating plant which we are not entitled to break.

Sir Arnold Gridley: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that industrial establishments would much prefer that an effort should not be made to restore power too soon, but that it should be further delayed, and present conditions allowed to continue, rather than have a partial resumption with the danger of having to go back in two or three weeks' time to the conditions under which we are now suffering? Would it not be better to err on the side of caution rather than rashness?

The Prime Minister: I quite agree with the hon. Member. We have looked at this very carefully, and I am advised that it is safe to resume in the central area. I will notify the House when it is thought to be safe to resume in the other areas. I quite agree that it would be a great mistake to have to go back again, but on the other hand it is urgent that we should not allow people who can produce to be kept waiting just because of timidity. I do not want rashness and I do not want

timidity; I am acting on the best advice available.

Major Poole: While assuring the Prime Minister that the announcement he has made will be very gladly received in the Midlands, may I put two points to him on the question of generators? Would he not agree that the position in those areas where current cannot at present be restored might be appreciably helped if many small firms could get possession of generators? While I am aware of the procedure which exists through the Minister of Supply, does not the Prime Minister agree that for very small businesses it is a definite hardship to ask them to purchase these generators, as they have not the necessary capital, and if they purchased them they might find them left on their hands in a fortnight's time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Well, it is a very important point. Could not these surplus generators be made available on loan to industrial concerns, in order to ease the position and put many small firms back into production which at the present time are still idle?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. and gallant Member will let me know where these surplus generators are, and other particulars about them, I will have the matter looked into. As far as I know, we are taking all steps to get all effective generators into production.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many rural areas the coal supply is non-existent, and villagers without any other alternative form of cooking are suffering great hardships? Can he hold out any hope that some provision will be made for supplies for these rural areas?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure whether the hon. and learned Member means supplies of coal or electricity.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I mean coal, where neither electricity nor gas is available for cooking.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Everyone seems to be rising at once. Does the Prime Minister wish to reply?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will give me information I will see what can be done. I am not aware of the cases.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the resumption in the central area mean that weekly periodicals will be free to appear next week?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Eden: With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the resumption of power for industry, can he also hold out any hope that—or give any indication of any date when—there may be some resumption for domestic purposes, particularly in the Midlands?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot say anything at present on that.

Mr. John Lewis: In order to avoid unnecessary unemployment on Monday next, would the right hon. Gentleman consider permitting industrial concerns to use electricity for lighting and auxiliary services 12 hours before the time of resumption?

The Prime Minister: I shall have to look into that. I could not answer a question like that offhand.

Mr. Austin: In view of the misleading estimates of fuel consumption given to the Government recently by the Central Electricity Board, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future there will be no misleading again on this matter?

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Even if the Prime Minister cannot give any definite date for any area except the central area—and I do not wish to press him too much—is it possible for him to give any forecast as to when other areas may get industrial electrical power, particularly the North-West?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think it is better, when I make a statement to the House. that it should be a definite statement. I do not want to indulge in speculation, either optimistic or otherwise.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, when the restrictions on electricity supply are removed from industry in the Midlands on Monday, what coal allocations will be in operation on the same date?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will read the statement he will see that point is covered.

Major Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall, as the country will assuredly recall, that the Minister of Fuel and Power assured the House and the country that this crisis would not last more than five days?

Mr. Gallacher: You know he has done a good job.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that textile firms in Lancashire are very anxious to have a small allocation of power or fuel as soon as possible, in order to enable their preparation departments to get going, such as tape rooms and card rooms, ready for a general resumption? Would he bear that point in mind when deciding on the resumption?

The Prime Minister: That refers to another point. I will take the matter up.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promise that he gave to the House last week in answer to a Question of mine, that adequate supplies of paraffin would be made available, has not been fulfilled, and that there is not more paraffin in the hands of dealers now than there was three weeks ago, so that they cannot satisfy their registered customers, let alone others who are in need of it for lighting or heating?

The Prime Minister: I understand that no complaints of that nature have reached my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. If the hon. Member has some specific instances in mind, perhaps he will send them to the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: In view of the conflicting statements in last night's Press, can the Prime Minister give any information as to what arrangements, if any, are being made with regard to the employment of displaced persons or German prisoners of war in the mining industry?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen those conflicting statements. I would advise my hon. Friend to deal only with official statements on these matters.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think we must now proceed with other Business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting.

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 289: Noes, 139.

Division No. 85.
AYES
13.51 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGovern, J


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Evans, S N (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ewart, R
McKay, J (Wallsend)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fairhurst, F
Mackay, R. W G. (Hull. N.w)


Allighan, Garry
Field, Captain W J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Alpass, J. H.
Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Foot, M. M.
McMillan, M K. (Western Isles)


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Forman, J C.
Macpherson, T (Romford)


Attewell, H. C
Foster, W (Wigan)
Mallalieu. J P W


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. J


Austin, H. L.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)


Awbery, S. S.
Gallacher, W.
Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)


Ayles, W H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mathers, G


Ayrton Could, Mrs. B
Gibbins, J
Medland, H M


Bacon, Miss A.
Gibson, C. W
Mellish, R J


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
Messer, F


Battley, J. R.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bechervaise, A E.
Greenwood, Rt Hon A. (Wakefield)
Millington. Wing-Comdr. E. R


Berry, H.
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
Mitchison Maj. G R.


Berwick, F
Grenfell, D R
Monslow, W


Bing, G. H. C.
Grey, C. F
Montague, F.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grierson, E
Moody, A S


Blyton, W R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley, R


Boardman, H.
Gruffydd, Prof W J
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Guy, W H.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mort, D L


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.


Bramall, Major E A
Hall, W. G.
Murray, J D.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Naylor, T E


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E A.
Neal, H (Claycross)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Harris, H.Wilson
Nichol, Mrs. M E (Bradford, N.)


Bruce, Major D. W. T
Harrison, J.
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)


Buchanan, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Capt F E. (Brantford)


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
O'Brien, T


Butler, H W. (Hackney S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Oldfield, W H


Callaghan, James
Hicks, G
Paget, R T


Castle, Mrs. B A
Holman, P
Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wontworth)


Champion, A J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Chetwynd, G. R
House, G
Parker, J


Cobb, F A.
Hoy, J.
Parkin, B. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Hubbard, T.
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)


Coldrick, W
Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Collick, P
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A


Collindridge, F
Hughes, H D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Pearl, Capt. T F


Collins, V. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Perrins, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Irving, W J.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Corlett, Dr. J
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Corvedale, Viscount
Janner, B
Porter, G (Leeds)


Cove, W G.
Jay, D. P. T
Price, M Philips


Crawley, A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pritt, D N


Grossman, R. H. S
Jeger Dr S W (St. Paneras, S.E.)
Proctor, W T.


Dagger, G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A C (Shipley)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Daines, P.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Randall, H E


Dalton, Rt Hon. H.
Jones, Eiwyn (Plaistow)
Ranger, J


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, P. Asterloy (Hitchin)
Rankin, J


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Keenan, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kendall W
Reeves, J


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Reid, T (Swindon)


Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Rhodes, H.


Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)
Kinlay, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Davies, S 0. (Merthyr)
Kirby, B V.
Robens, A


Deer, G.
Lang, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonsbirs).


Delargy, Captain H. J
Lavers, S
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Diamond, J.
Lee, F (Hulme)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dobbie, W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Rogers, G. H R.


Dodds, N. N.
Levy, B W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, J (Bolton)
Sargood, R.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren,. G. S.
Segal, Dr S.


Dumpleton, C W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Shackleton, Wing-Com. E. A. A.


Dye, S.
Logan, D G.
Sharp, Granville


Ede, Rt Hon. J. C
Longden, F
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Edelman, M.
McAllister, G
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, E (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.





Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Skeffington, A. M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
West, D. G.


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Skinnard, F W.
Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilcock, Group. Capt C A B


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Thurtle, E.
Wilkes, L.


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Tiffany, S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Solley, L. J.
Timmons, J.
Willey, F T (Sunderland)


Sorensen, R. W.
Titterington, M. F
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Tolley, L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Stamford, W.
Usborne, Henry
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stephen, C
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wise, Major F. J.


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S.


Stokes, R. R.
Walkden, E.
Wyatt, W.


Stross, Dr. B.
Walker, G. H.
Yates, V. F.


Stubbs, A. E.
Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Summerakill, Dr. Edith
Warbey, W. N.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Swingler, S.
Watkins, T. E



SyIvester, G. O.
Watson, W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Mr. Simmons and


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Weitzman, D.
Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Aitken, Hon. Max.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nutting, Anthony


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Osborne, C.


Beechman, N. A.
Haughton, S. G.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Birch, Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prescott, Stanley


Boothby, R.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bossom, A. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Bower, N.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ramsay, Major S.


Boyd. Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hurd, A
Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, Maj. P G (Ecclesall)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland


Butcher, H. W
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'Id'n)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H..
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Carson, E.
Lambert, Hon. G
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Scott, Lord W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Clarke, Col R S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Snadden, W. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stanley, Rt. Hon O.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crowder. Capt. J. F. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'lon, S.)


De la Bèret R
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Teeling, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H R
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Drewe, C.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Eccles. D. M
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Walker-Smith, D.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R


Erroll, F J.
Marples, A. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Badmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Willoughby de Eresby,


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, F.
Lord Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gage, C.
Molsan, A. H. E.
York, C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gammans, L. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.



Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Mr. Studholme and


Grant, Lady
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj, C. E.
Major Connant.


Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.56 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short Bill. It received extremely close attention in another place where, as hon. Members are aware, forestry experts, as well as legal experts abound, and where there are not a few private woodland owners. It was due perhaps to their knowledge of the need for afforestation and the importance of timber in our national life that many Amendments were moved, and several useful Amendments accepted to which I shall make reference later. The Bill passed through all its stages without a Division, and because administrative action is being held up pending the passage of this Bill, I hope that it will not be long delayed in passing through this House.
On 30th November, 1945, I announced to the House the general programme to be carried out by the Forestry Commissioners, and private forestry has a very important part to play in those proposals. The dedication scheme referred to in this Bill, provides for covenants of dedication, whereby an owner, in return for certain State assistance, undertakes to manage and to continue to manage his woodlands in an approved way. The scheme is well known and well understood by private woodland owners. The origin of this dedication scheme can be found in Command Paper No. 6447 and in the Supplementary White Paper No. 6500. The Forestry Commissioners have already made preliminary inquiries among private woodland owners to ascertain, if possible, what kind of response there is likely to be to this dedication scheme. Hon. Members will be interested to learn that we have had 590 offers, comprising 329,500 acres, consisting of 205,000 acres in England, 113,000 acres in Scotland, and 11,500 acres in Wales. And so there is no doubt at all about the popularity of this scheme, and if it can be made a real success, it will most certainly play a very important part in helping us to restore the devastation in our private forests, particularly since 1939.
The essential feature of the dedication scheme is that dedication shall run with the land. In other words, it will bind not only the present owner but successive owners, thus securing what is perhaps the most vital thing in forestry, a continuity of policy and sound management throughout. The main feature of this Bill is to enable certain classes of limited owners, such as tenants for life, in England, and liferenters and trustees, in Scotland, to enter into dedication schemes which will be binding on their successors. There is also the minor object in Clause 7 of adjusting the administrative position in regard to the signing of documents on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Only officers of the Department of the Secretary of State for Scotland at present can sign on his behalf, which excludes officers of the Forestry Commission who do all the necessary work. It causes, I understand, a great deal of administrative inconvenience. Clause 7 corrects that, and enables officers of the Commission to sign documents on his behalf in connection with his powers and duties under the Forestry Act, 1945.
Since I made that announcement in the House in 1945 the timber supply position —as, I am sure, every Member will be aware—has grown steadily worse in this country. Many very desirable developments are restricted. Building, transport, and almost every part of our industrial reconstruction campaign is affected to some extent by the shortage of timber. It is not generally appreciated, even yet, that approximately 50 per cent. of the country's standing timber has been felled since 1939. Even by that time we had scarcely started to make up the leeway we lost between 1914–18. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that we should reconstitute our forests at the earliest moment, and this small Measure will, I believe, be a definite step in that direction.
I said, earlier, that I would refer to the Amendments made to this Bill in another place. Hon. Members will see in Clause 1 (1) that where there happens to be. a dispute between a woodland owner and the Forestry Commission, as to whether there should be a change of user for particular land or not, the woodland owner will now be able to appeal directly to the Minister against any decision previously taken by the Commission. The


same applies in Clause 3 (1), relating to Scotland, which again prevents the Commissioners being judges in their own case. A new Clause, Clause 5, is designed to protect well-managed, dedicated woodlands from compulsory acquisition under the Forestry Act, 1945, while Clause 6 now provides that only those advances made within 30 years from the date of compulsory purchase shall be charged against compensation payable, plus 3 per cent. compound interest. These various concessions have made the Bill much more acceptable to private woodland owners, than was the case when it was originally introduced. It is entirely based on voluntary principles; there is nothing compulsory about it. Private woodland owners are both anxious and willing to take full advantage of it, and I hope the. Bill will receive a very speedy passage through this House so that the best use can be made of the dedication scheme.

4.4 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I wish to speak not only on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House, but as one who, for nearly 40 years, has taken a practical interest in forestry, and who is—if I may strike a personal note—now enjoying the fruits of his labours in seeing cut the timber which he was responsible for planting or having planted. I agree with the Minister that this Bill is useful. It is an excellent thing that at long last this House and country are beginning to take an interest in forestry. I should be out of Order if I pursued that point now, but I think a great deal could be done by Members on both sides who are interested in forestry, to get out of the minds of certain members of the public what might be described as the "pretty pretty" idea of our countryside. There are some people who prefer to see a wood of decayed trees, instead of growing timber, and such people occasionally write articles to the newspapers. I am, as a journalist, intensely suspicious of people—except Sir William Beach Thomas—who write weekly articles for newspapers about the countryside. Most of them know nothing about the subject, except from what they have seen in illustrated newspapers. Therefore, if this Bill, and other Measures like it, can do something to create a forestry-minded public in this country, and make forestry what it should be—an important industry

from every point of view—it will do good.
I agree that the Bill has been improved in its passage through another place, but there are two or three points that I want to make, and certain questions I want to ask. First, may I tell the Minister that I have to leave shortly, owing to an engagement in the country, and I hope he will not think me discourteous if I am not in my place when these questions are answered. I think it should be mentioned that it is possible to obtain a planting grant quite apart from this Bill. Planting grants have been in operation for years, and some owners of woodlands may prefer to have a planting grant rather than adopt the dedication scheme. As I have found from personal experience, it is also possible to enter into perfectly proper business arrangements with the Forestry Commission whereby, if one is near a State forest, one can obtain the advice of the local forestry superintendent in regard to a private forest. I have done that in my own case, with most beneficial results.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House would have preferred, under Clause 3, some form of arbitral appeal rather than an appeal to the Minister. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to that point because I think it would be possible to appoint an arbitrator to whom an appeal could be made. The second point to which we attach importance is that the form of dedication should be prepared as soon as possible. We should like to see it prepared before the Bill goes through the House, and I cannot see any reason why it should not be prepared. I understand from certain private discussions that I have had with the right hon. Gentleman, that the general form can be seen in the White Paper, but that is not enough from our point of view, and I wish to press strongly that the form of dedication should be available at the earliest opportunity.
My third point is a slightly novel one to raise on a Forestry Bill. I do not know whether there are any Members in the House at the moment who sit for Divisions in Kent, but if there are they will know, as I know, what is not perhaps generally known, that in the Weald of Kent and Sussex there is the highly important and recently resuscitated underwood industry.


This ancient industry, in the 18th century and afterwards, was of such importance that huge areas of land in Sussex and Kent, which were formerly agricultural, were turned into underwood, into what the French call sous-bois. It arose because the proceeds to be obtained from this underwood were, in the days of depression after the Napoleonic wars, greater than could be obtained from agricultural land. We should like to see this Bill cover the dedication of underwood land. This trade was heavily hit by foreign importation in the 50's and 6o's of the last century. I remember asking a former Minister of Agriculture, nearly 40 years ago, to help us, but at that time, nothing could be done. Then, under the general tariff system, there was some slight improvement in certain aspects. The making of hoops in this trade used to be profitable, and it is interesting to note that Cobbett in his "Rural Rides," refers to the fact that labourers in Sussex and Kent earned much better wages than in most other parts because they were able to work in the winter at this underwood trade.
There has been recently a profitable aspect of the underwood trade in Kent and Sussex in the making of chestnut split fencing. It was not only valuable during the war, but it is valuable today, and it will continue to be so because of its use on housing estates, in the absence of iron and other forms of fencing. This can be made a valuable trade. It pays good wages and gives good profits to the buyer and to the owner. A godson of mine, a noble Lord, in another place, even before the war, found that it was possible on his estate, to sell underwood, 10 years old, at a gross price of £29 to £30 an acre. A lot of this underwood land is not in good hands, but that which is in good hands yields good profits. Much of it is in poor condition. I think that if we could have a form of dedication for underwood it would be possible to improve the trade, and I would raise that as a question to be considered.

Mrs. Leah Manning: May I ask the noble Lord what is the length of time generally required for the maturing of underwood? He mentioned 10 years in relation to split chestnut fencing. Could he tell us to what uses under-wood can be put besides the two which he

has mentioned—split fences and hoop rna king?

Earl Winterton: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her courteous intervention. I am not an expert in all forms of underwood. I should say that in the case of chestnut underwood, it would be 15 to 20 years before one would get the first cutting. The uses of underwood are very various in different parts of England. In some parts it is made into wattles for hurdles, hoops for barrels, fencing rails, stakes, peasticks, bean sticks, walking sticks, thatch pegs, and so forth. I am talking of that part of England with which I am familiar. There is an enormous amount of underwood land which has gone out of cultivation. In Sussex, Kent and Hampshire, if something could be done through the agency of this Bill to improve the underwood trade, it would help very materially. It would be out of Order for me on this Bill to go further than I have done, but perhaps it would not be committing a serious breach of Order, if I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be a matter for consideration whether the Forestry Commission should not be given some powers to consider the question of underwood as well as high-wood. It might be worth while looking into the statistics that exist because this trade has had a recrudescence in recent years. My hon. Friends on this side of the House have no objection to the Bill, we think that it is a useful Measure. I end by saying that I think the Bill has been improved in its passage through another place, and I hope that it will do something to sustain this great and growing interest in forestry, which should be one of the props of our national economy.

4.15 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: The Minister in introducing the Bill drew attention to the devastation suffered by our woods since 1939. The destruction of our woodlands started long before that and one has to go back at least as far as 1914 to appreciate fully the appalling reality of the devastation. One of the evil legacies of the two world wars which have occurred in the space of 30 years is that privately owned woodlands are today in a shocking state, and I think that the word "devastated" is one which gives a better description than any other.
I hope that I shall not be ruled out of Order if I offer some suggestions to the


House on why the planting and rehabilitation of our woodlands in the inter-war years, and perhaps before, did not proceed as fast as it should have done. In passing, I would remind the House that those woods which haw given the greatest contribution towards our war effort, in the two wars, by providing the bulk of the timber were largely those in the hands of private woodland owners, and those which had been established by the intiative and enterprise displayed by past generations of landowners. It is a pity that the rehabilitation of our woodlands was so slow during the inter-war years. There were many reasons for that—successive Governments were responsible —but I do not wish to dwell at length on any particular factor. Suffice it to say that the home market had to fight against uncontrolled imports; the incidence of direct taxation prevented landowners from investing large sums of money in a long-term enterprise such as forestry; the incidence of Death Duties led to the breakup of large estates which had been economic units in forestry, but were not so when once they were broken up; and a psychological factor of some importance was that owners of woodlands could no longer be certain that any investment which they made in establishing plantations would benefit their successors. There was no longer the certainty. perhaps not even the probability, that estates would pass to sons or grandsons.
The introduction of a scheme of dedication will, to some extent, mitigate the discouraging factors to which I have drawn attention. But those factors still operate, and, indeed, have been added to Even today, private woodland owners are prohibited from felling, and capital is locked up in the woods. Where a licence is granted to fell, then the sales must be made at controlled prices, which are far below the current world prices of timber. Direct taxation gets higher and higher, Death Duties get higher and higher, and, therefore, the uncertainty of succession to which I have referred becomes more and more uncertain. In addition to that there is, temporarily we hope, a shortage of labour and a shortage of materials, and more important still an extreme shortage of young trees.
In fairness to the private woodland owner, I must also remind the House that,

during the war, woods, many of them immature, were compulsorily felled. The wood was sold at controlled prices, and even if a profit was realised, most of that profit went in paying Income Tax and Surtax. Woodland owners, I think, displayed great patriotism and I heard no complaint when woods were compulsorily felled, although there was considerable heartburning when young and favourite plantations were slaughtered to provide the pit props which were so sorely needed. The Bill we are considering today will give no dole for land owners. If any hon. Member opposite attempts to argue that it is just another unearned dole for landlords I would say that woodland owners are entitled to some State aid in view of the very great difficulties and handicaps which have been placed in their way by the past actions of the State. These actions may have been necessary at the time, but certainly they have contributed to making forestry a precarious profession.
I want now to make some criticisms of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will consider them constructively. At the outset, speaking as a Member who sits on this side of the House and as one of the signators to both the main Report and the Supplementary Report of the Forestry Commission, I certainly hope the House will give this Bill its Second Reading today. Here let me reinforce the point made by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). It is wrong for the Government to ask that this Bill should be discussed before the terms of the dedication contract have been made public. This Bill was discussed in another place at the very beginning of December if not at the end of November, and I know complaints were made there that it really did make discussion of the Bill—I will not say nonsense—but extremely difficult if it was not known what the terms of the contract were going to be. Since the Bill was discussed in another place, two and a half months have gone by and the Bill is now before this House and the Minister is still unable to give that measure of enlightenment which I suggest the House is entitled to before, being asked to consider the Bill. I believe that this is a difficult document. It is being, I will not say negotiated, but discussed with representative woodland owners, but no progress seems to have been made. It must indeed be a vastly important document if


after months of negotiations its final form is not reached. It is essential to know the details of this deed when considering the Bill for it may be that the covenant will be more important to woodland owners than the Bill itself when it becomes an Act.
I now ask the House to turn its attention to the irrevocable nature of the deed of dedication under Clause 1 of the Bill. Perhaps "irrevocable" is too strong. As originally drafted, I understand that the Bill read that the deed of covenant would continue in operation:
"except with the previous consent to writing of the Commissioners.
In another place, there was added these words:
"or in case of dispute under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture
I suggest that as the Forestry Commission is now virtually a Department of the Ministry of Agriculture in England and of the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture cannot be unbiased in case of dispute. I appreciate that the whole basis of the dedication scheme is that as much suitable land as possible shall be dedicated for all time for the purpose of growing timber, and, of course, I appreciate that the growing of timber is a long term agricultural operation.
It may be possible to reap a crop black Italian poplar or of the new German hybrid poplars in perhaps 25 years. Where rainfall and other climatic conditions are suitable, it is possible that spruce, larch, Douglas, and Thuja may be reaped—to continue the agricultural simile—in under something less than 5o years and in not more than 100 years. In the case of pines in the north or east, it may be more than 100 years, but in the case of hard-woods it may be more than 200 years. Any of us with any knowledge of forestry, realise that the Minister must have a strong element of permanency in his dedication scheme. It is for that reason that we support the whole idea of dedication, and yet over really long periods, circumstances may completely change, and the change may affect either the Forestry Commission or woodland owners. I submit there should he in the dedication scheme, a loophole through which either the Commission or the private woodland owner may crawl

to freedom if circumstances have changed completely.
It is difficult to give illustrations. We cannot anticipate the unexpected, and the future is unknown. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. M. Philips Price) knows better than I do of some or the changes in the past. Take the oaks in the Forest of Dean and in many other places. They were widely spaced to provide crooked timber—the knees and elbows—needed for the construction of our battleships. Those oaks were planted when no one knew that iron would float. I am told that the yews in our churchyards were planted to provide the bows for our longbow men, before some fiend invented a more dangerous propellant in the shape of gunpowder—the beginning (If the atomic age. I can imagine the Minister of Agriculture in those days—after it had been found that iron would float and after gunpowder had been invented—saying to himself, "Well, you never know. It is my job to provide wood for battleships and yew for longbows. Iron may rust, the powder may kill the chap who is trying to let off the gun and I think that some day we may go back to wooden battleships or longbows." That is the attitude which I think the Minister of Agriculture of those days would have taken. It should not have been for him to decide whether, in the circumstances, there should be a complete change over. That would have been more the task of the Minister of Defence, had he existed.
May I try to illustrate what may happen in the future? Will plastics or glass replace timber? They may. Great progress is being made in constructional work and in other directions with both plastics and glass, and in this atomic age when modern alchemists are in fact changing one element into another some entirely unsuspected quality of the soil or subsoil of some locality may encourage private enterprise to make experiments in order to ascertain whether that quality cannot be put to a more useful purpose than growing trees. In a case of that sort it should be for the Minister of Supply or the President of the Board of Trade to give a decision whether the land in question should continue to he used for growing trees or not. This Bill will be greatly improved if, between now and the Committee stage the Minister can devise words which will allow him to make provision for


an appeal to some Minister or individual other than himself.
I turn now to the subject of grants. This raises the thorny question of how best to deal fairly with small woodlands. It is clear that in the case of privately-owned woodlands which, in the first place are considered suitable for dedication and then become dedicated, the planting grant and the maintenance grant will be paid. I wish to ask whoever is to reply, what factors will be taken into account by the Forestry Commission when determining whether to accept or reject a dedication offer? Will the overriding consideration guiding the Forestry Commission be whether they would wish to take over a wood in case of default by the owner? May I have an answer to those two questions later? If the assumption inherent in my question; is correct it will give rise to very grave unfairness as between one owner and another.

Mr. T. Williams: Perhaps I might answer that point now to avoid its repetition later? Quite obviously, if the area of land was suitable and the private woodland owner agreed to grow the right kind of timber, then it would be entirely in his hands to determine whether or not he would enter into a dedication scheme. If, however, he was not disposed to enter into a dedication scheme but allowed the area of land to grow nothing, and to run riot, then, and only then, would compulsory purchase be contemplated. Thus it is entirely in the landowner's hands.

Colonel Ropner: I think that the Minister has only partially answered the question which I put to him. Let me give an example of what I have in mind. It may well be that there is a small wood in close proximity to a number of other plantations managed by the Forestry Commission. When I say "small" I mean really small—something like five acres. The owner may wish to dedicate, and I am presuming that the Forestry Commission would say to themselves, "Yes, we will allow him to dedicate because if he defaults and we are compelled to take over the wood we can manage it since it is in close proximity to other forests which are being managed by us." But there might also be the case of an owner of a very much larger plantation which, by reason perhaps of its isolation and the ultimate difficulty of the extraction

of the timber, would not be acceptable to the Forestry Commission and would not in fact be taken over by them in the event of any kind of defalcation by the owner. I do not want it to be the case that the test of whether a wood is accepted for dedication should be whether it is ultimately suitable to be taken over by the Forestry Commission. I am asking for information, but if that is the case I think it is very wrong and will lead, as I have said, to unfairness as between owner and owner and will, in fact, deprive the country of very considerable quantities of woodland.
There is another category of woodlands —those which are considered suitable for dedication but are not dedicated. In other words, those which the owner is not willing to dedicate. I presume that if such woods were mismanaged, they would be compulsorily acquired under the 1919 Act, and I think it is right that they should be But supposing they are properly maintained, and suitable for dedication, but not in fact dedicated. Will such woods continue to receive a grant under the 1919 Act? I am advised that they will not. But the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, in announcing Government policy said:
I would. however, like to point out that there is available for the small woodland owner, even with woods which are not suitable for dedication, a £10 per acre grant.
Since he said, "even for woods not suitable for dedication," it would appear from his statement that woodlands suitable for dedication but not dedicated will continue to receive a grant under the 1919 Act. If that is not so, I think the Minister would be well advised to make it clear during the afternoon.
The third category comprises woods which are unsuitable for dedication—in other words, small woods. These are very important to the economy of the country and there are about one million acres of them. They provide amenities, they afford shelter for man and beast, they are mostly on good land, and they produce quite a high percentage of our hardwood. Well managed small woodlands are more expensive to maintain, although they give a higher yield per acre. I suggest that all woods, if they are well managed and however small, including even those which we should regard, and describe best as shelter belts, should get an acreage grant. If the wood covers only a very


small acreage, it would then get a small grant, but it would be of assistance. It is true that the only sanction which could be imposed by the Government upon a defaulting owner would be recovery of the grant, but even so the Government would be making a good bargain in encouraging the proper management of those very small woods. They would be making a real contribution to the beauty of the countryside. That is important, when we desire that the Forestry Commission should be supported by the goodwill of the country and when we know that there is very considerable, even if mistaken. criticism of the Forestry Commission because of the allegation that they grow what are called "black woods." So far as it is economically possible, we should encourage the planting and care and management of hardwoods.
I want to ask the Minister another question, and I hope that he will answer it. What machinery is being set up to determine, in the shortest possible time, which woodlands are or are not suitable for dedication? There will be cases of woodland owners who apply to be included in the dedication scheme, but who will be turned down by the Forestry Commission because of the unsuitability of their woods. On the other hand, we shall get cases of woodland owners who apply for grants under the 1919 Act and who will be told that they cannot qualify but must dedicate. There will be thousands of cases which will need decision and in which questions of this sort will require to be settled. Meanwhile, the devastated areas will retrain unplanted, fences will be tumbling down, and the land will be a wilderness of weeds. The longer a decision is put off and the longer the planting is delayed, the more difficult will it be to rehabilitate those areas when the time comes. Also, the more labour will it require, and the greater expense will be incurred. I shall be very glad if the Minister will tell us how he proposes to cope with the large number of inspections which the Forestry Commission's department will have to make, in order to reach conclusions in cases of that sort.
Finally, we know that the dedication scheme places on those who enter into it the onus, first, of entering into a deed of covenant: secondly, managing their woods according to a plan; thirdly, keeping

elementary accounts, and fourthly, providing skilled supervision. I hope the Minister and the Forestry Commission realise that of those four obligations by far the most difficult will be that of providing skilled supervision. There are thousands of owners the extent of whose woodland is so small that the cost of maintaining even one forester is-not justified. I hope that, as part of the service which the Forestry Commission will be able to give, either in connection with the dedication scheme or outside it, there will be skilled assistance. It should take the form of itinerant parties of four, five or six men —may I call them "working parties" without offending the Minister of Agriculture by borrowing an expression used more often by the President of the Board of Trade?—working under a highly skilled foreman. They could visit areas and could do, in one area after another, that work which the owners of woodlands are often incapable of carrying out from their own resources. I know that the Forestry Commission are short of skilled labour and that it would be difficult to house the men when they visited each area, but I hope in the end that some step of that sort will be taken.
I conclude by expressing the hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and that when we get to the Committee stage the Minister will be prepared to improve what is already a good Bill.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) I support the Bill. He put forward quite a number of important details which I hope the Minister will consider. The main object of this short and simple Bill is to clear away certain legal difficulties which are in the way of dedication. The need for it arises out of the postwar Forestry Report, published in 1944 by the Forestry Commission. That report envisaged for the first time the principle of dedication of private woodlands for the purposes of timber growing for the nation. The hon. and gallant Member, like myself, sat as a member of the former Forestry Commission when that report was produced. I am glad that at last some steps are being taken towards implementing that very important report.
Here we have, for the first time, the principle of dedication accepted by the


State. The State must be the principal agent in the great afforestation programme. Forestry policy is evidently a long-term policy. Moreover, large estates are tending to break up, and the main agency for the management of large blocks of forests obviously must in the future be the State. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience among owners of private woodlands, and it would be a great mistake for the State to ignore it. There have been large estates run for decades, if not for centuries, in this country, where there has been an immense accumulation of knowledge as to the working and management of woodlands. Many owners sold outlying parts of their estates but retained their own farms and certain blocks of woodlands. For those medium-sized estates, and in some cases for the larger ones too, the dedication scheme will be very useful. Private owners ought to be able to give to the State the benefit of that old experience and knowledge which they have accumulated, while they themselves should get back from the State information and knowledge about new processes and new methods of management.
As I see it, there is a very useful interlocking relationship between agriculture and woodland management. In the case of the owner of a small farm who keeps three or four hundred acres of woods, there is an interchange between the men working in the farm and the men working in the woods from season to season. As has already been stated, a very large trade has been resuscitated in the South of England out of coppice woods. As I pointed out just now, there is also a very large trade developing in woodland materials for fencing, gates and so on for the farms. That sort of woodland should be dedicated. I am sure that all good woodland owners have in the past dedicated their woods to the growing of timber and not to the keeping of pheasants. In the days of depression during the latter half of the last century much planting went on although it did not pay to plant. Planting was done for the love of planting. The men who had the woods, loved to see the woods grow, and the nation benefitted by that during the war, when unfortunately the bulk of the Forestry Commission's plantations were not ripe. The 25 to 30 year plantations are now coming in for their first thinnings, and they will increasingly

be able to provide what the nation requires. During the war, the nation had to fall back on what was planted during the last 50, 80 or 100 years by those who planted for the love of it.
This Bill now makes the dedication scheme possible. It sweeps away the difficulties which come from entailed estates where dedication might not be correct in law. I hope that all those who can do so will dedicate and not hold back. I am afraid there is still a certain amount of hesitation. No one should expect to get grants from public funds unless he dedicates his woods to the State. I am not in favour of bringing any of the advantages of this dedication scheme to those who do not dedicate. If they do not dedicate, it is for stupid reasons or for no reason at all. Some do not like to see Forestry Commission officers coming and looking at their woods. I am always delighted to see Forestry Commission officers coming to see my small woods, and I pick their brains and give them in return what little knowledge I may have accumulated. Therefore I do not see any reason for hesitation.
The deed of covenant should be drawn up as quickly as possible. In fact, the House ought to see the deed of covenant, and it should be laid on the Table. I do not know what the provisions are in this matter but it is far too important to be left to the Forestry Commission. The House should see a thing of this kind, in order to decide whether they approve. One thing gives cause to owners to hold back a little, and that is whether it is worth the cost. I think it is. I can quite understand a little hesitation because the cost of running woods has gone up by leaps and bounds. The cost is as much as 100 or 150 per cent. above prewar figures, and yet in the case of the price of timber for sale, the latest increase was 25 per cent. and before that there was only a small increase at the beginning of the war. That is not very much encouragement and a revision in that direction would encourage a good many owners. That is the only complaint the owners have now in relation to this scheme, and they ought to get over that. Even if it needs an act of faith to dedicate, they should dedicate. I am very glad to see this Bill brought before the House, and I hope it will be given a Second Reading.

4.56 p.m.

Major McCallum: The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) will forgive me if I do not follow him immediately although I wish later to refer to one or two of the points he raised. I wish to put some points to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I hope that he may be able to give us some reply. In opening the Debate the Minister of Agriculture said that the Forestry Commission had already received some 570 offers of dedication. Like the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, I find there is a considerable amount of hesitation, and that the 570 could be vastly increased, if certain matters were cleared out of the way. The first thing is the matter of the dedication covenant. It ought to be made known. In what other business would anybody be expected to sign a cheque, without knowing what it was for? I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us that the actual covenant which the owners are expected to sign will be laid on the Table of this House in the near future and before the Committee Stage of the Bill is taken.
There is a great deal of hesitation among small woodland owners. There are numbers of small woodland owners in Scotland. They do not all, as the Minister of Agriculture gave us to understand, sit in another place; there are quite a few who sit in this House. There are many who are vastly interested in this Bill, and the whole question of small woods is one of the greatest importance. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) said that a small wood might be accepted for dedication if it were situated fairly close to some Forestry Commission operations, but that if it were situated in an area remote from the Forestry Commission's operations, there would be some difficulty about accepting the dedication. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean said that everyone ought to dedicate. There are people who are willing to dedicate, but we understand that if their woods are situated far away from Forestry Commission regions there may be some difficulty and the dedication will not be accepted.
We might get over that in the way suggested by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and myself in an earlier Debate on forestry, that is with mobile quads of forestry officers. Inspectors

and workmen. In that way the Forestry Commission would be able to maintain supervision over woods no matter where they were. I think the Forestry Commission have this matter under consideration. I was in fact told by a representative of the Commission in Scotland that they are actually considering this matter. If it is intended, when the trained foresters and other labour become available, to promote these mobile squads, I cannot see why it should not be possible to accept the dedication of woodlands, however small they are, and in whatever part of the country they are situated.
Another point is with regard to the future of dedicated woods. In another place the matter of finances was raised, and it was pointed out how a present owner would bind his heirs and their heirs to an obligation which it might be impossible to honour, owing to the impossibility of foreseeng what would be the financial situation of, say, the grandson or whoever might succeed in the second or third generation. I believe the Government considered the matter, but I ask them to reconsider it seriously. A good scheme was put forward in another place and was not accepted, but I feel the Government might be persuaded either to adopt that scheme or to do something of a similar nature.
My last point is that of submitting to arbitration decisions of the Forestry Commission about future suitability. In connection with the Agriculture Bill, I was a great supporter of the Forestry Commission being placed under the Minister of Agriculture in England and Wales and under the Secretary of State in Scotland and. vis-à-vis agriculture, I still believe that to be the best set-up, but this is a question of deciding, perhaps not in one hundred or two hundred years, as the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash said, but in the not too distant future, whether a dedicated woodland is really being put to its best use. In Scotland we are at this moment studying what can be done to improve conditions in the Highlands. One of the lines which is being followed, is the exploration of the minerals resources of Scotland. It may well be that in the Highlands of Scotland there are certain minerals—in fact there are such minerals—which can be worked for the good of the country. Yet those minerals, may be found in areas covered by woods, and it would be up to somebody to decide


whether it was better for the country to keep the woods, and not bother about the minerals, or quarry the minerals and not mind if the woods are destroyed in doing so. Obviously, as far as Scotland is concerned, the Secretary of State, according to this Bill, is the authority who will have to decide any dispute between the owner of that land and the Forestry Commission, but it is possible that a dispute may arise, because of the decision of the Secretary of State, between his Department and the Department responsible for quarrying those minerals in future. Would the Government look at that problem and see whether it is not possible to put into this Bill, before it passes the final stages in this House, some means of providing arbitration for a decision of that sort?
Those are four points on which I hope the Secretary of State will be able to enlighten us a little. In saying so, I do not want to indicate at all that I belittle the Bill; like all other Members I welcome it, but would like to make it slightly more workable.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Dye: One of the things that strikes me about the situation today is that we have now a. Socialist majority in this House, and are giving consideration to a Bill, the purpose of which is to provide a subsidy for the purpose of growing trees on privately owned land and to give supervision to those who own private land on which trees are growing but who are unable to do that for themselves; whereas, 25 years ago, or maybe a little more, there was a Conservative majority in this House and they passed a Bill for the State to take over land for the purpose of growing trees. It seems to be a little topsyturvy, but perhaps it is the truly I British way.
I had some doubts myself, whether we ought to support a Bill with these powers, but one thing it brings out is that now we must treat woodland as crops; we must treat the whole business of forestry in this country from the point of view of the crop that it brings to a nation's need. As we have during the past 40 years felled far more trees in the country than we have planted, our urgent task is to enable replanting to take place on the very best land, and with those trees which are or will be needed as rapidly as possible. Therefore, I shall support the Bill, be-

cause I want to see the smaller woodlands of the country replanted as soon as possible. The more quickly they can be replanted, the easier will be the task, the less will be the cost, and the sooner they will come into production. So I shall support the Bill from the point of view of getting better production as quickly as possible, and also because it brings into operation a degree of stability so far as the dedication scheme is concerned.
During the past century there was a certain amount of stability about our well managed estates. At least, in my native county of Norfolk they were well managed from the point of view of timber production as well as agricultural production. There was stability because those who planned could and did see through many years. Now, with the breakup of estates and with the changes that have taken place, there has been a loss of the element of stability. We want to get it back as quickly as possible, and this is a step in that direction. So, while I hope the Bill will pass, I also hope there will be a great deal more to follow. I went through one of the woodlands in Kent this weekend, and was struck with the element of decay and neglect right through it. There was ample mature timber, some of it dying from the top downwards, and much of it needing attention. We must get an element of State control, as well as an advisory service, into the whole of our woodlands as soon as possible. If this scheme will enable that to be done, both for the planting of new trees and control over existing woodlands, then it is a step in the right direction.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Vane: I do not think the hon. Member for South Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) was quite right in saying that this was mainly a Bill to pay subsidies, although I appreciate his scruples. It is a Bill to enable the Forestry Commission and private owners to enter into a special kind of covenant, which we know as the dedication scheme. I have been a supporter of this scheme since it was first published. Although I have regretted the methods by which it was launched, I hope the Minister will accept any criticism I offer today as criticism based on my practical experience, and not just an attempt to pick holes in the Bill. I thought the Minister's statement that the dedication scheme was very widely accepted and


understood was really an overstatement. All in fact that has happened is that some 570 owners have signed a flimsy piece of paper which says:
I am prepared to consider placing the above woodlands under the Forestry Commissioners' Dedication Scheme. As at present advised I prefer basis r or basis 2.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever tried to work out which is the correct basis to adopt in any particular case. It is not easy. I think that officers of the Forestry Commission who will be going round visiting woodland owners will bear me out in saying that in a great many cases it has been difficult to get them to sign, not only because it is difficult to decide whether basis No. 1 or basis No. 2 is the correct one, but also because they would prefer to hold their hand until the dedication convenant has been published and they know exactly what they are being asked to enter into. That is a very reasonable position to take up.
There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "voluntary" in this instance. The first announcement of policy was made by the Minister in November, 1945, when he said:
the alternative to proper management under State aid, will be State acquisition, and the Forestry Commissioners will be so directed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November. 1945; Vol 416, c. 1789.]
I understood that as offering two possibilities. We could either accept the dedication scheme, or expose ourselves to the possibility of having our woodlands acquired, except that there was a number of small woods which were to be ruled unsuitable for dedication. Many owners immediately began to inquire what constituted suitability for dedication. We have never had any rules as to suitability for dedication. I think that 15 months or so after the scheme was accepted by the Government, we deserve to know more about it. Later it was suggested that there was a third course but it is not very easy to decide. I do not know whether it is disrespectful to refer to what the Lord Chancellor said in another place, but he tried to explain it and I think he left it a little more confused than when he started. I hope that whoever replies to this Debate will make it clear whether there are two or three alternatives.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), who was at one time a Forestry Commissioner, referred in particular to woods which might be managed to dedication standards, but where the owners have not entered into the covenant. I would like to know, as many owners would like to know, whether that is allowed for or not. I hope we shall have a very clear statement on this point. Then we come to the question of who is to decide in a case of suitability where a dispute arises. I hope it will not be the Forestry Commission, because it is utterly wrong that they should be judges in their own cause. Either they may refuse something which is inconvenient to them, or they may put pressure on an owner one way or the other to suit themselves. Although I would not like to impute too ill motives, I think it is wrong in principle that anyone should be judge in his own interest. There is no reason why there should not be an independent tribunal. It need not be as elaborate as the tribunal to be set up under the Agriculture Bill. Or again, since we have accepted arbitration by an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution under a later clause, and there are a great many practising surveyors available who have had as much experience in forestry as the Forestry Commission, I do not see why we should not have such arbitration.

Mr. T. Williams: I think it was explained very clearly by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, in another place, that there are the three alternatives. One may dedicate, one may decide to carry on afforestation without dedication, or, under the 1945 Act, it is clearly possible to purchase compulsorily. But, in regard to compulsory purchase under the 1945 Act, as was clearly explained, one would have to pass through the local inquiry, time for objections, examination of objections and, finally, a positive Resolution in this House, and in the other House before land could be compulsorily purchased. I do not think any private owner need fear the unfair operation of the 1945 Act, when, in the last analysis, it is not an outside arbitrator, but Parliament. which will have the last word.

Mr. Vane: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made that clearer. I never meant to suggest that he was going to be unfair, but only that the issue was confused. I have had the


honour to be a member of the advisory committee of the Forestry Commission and private owners in the north-west region. Many people have written to me asking all sorts of questions on this point in particular and I have always had to say I did not know the answer. I hoped we would sooner or later be given a dear answer. Now I think we have at least an advance on what was said before. Another serious matter is the shortage of Forestry Commission officers available to help private woodland owners. We find one man has to look after nine or 10 counties. One of the officers I was speaking to admitted that it was quite beyond the powers of any normal man to keep in touch with woodland owners whose property might amount to a quarter of a million acres, some of which would be widely scattered over several counties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to increase the number of officers in this branch of the service.
Now I should like to refer to Clause 6 which contains the financial provisions. I think it is normal that any Treasury should adopt the attitude which I believe has been adopted in the drafting of this Clause. It is perfectly proper, where grants have been made to any private person, that they should be recovered in any later acquisition of the land by the State. But I do not know whether it has been fully considered exactly how forestry finance works. A young plantation can be assessed to Income Tax at the choice of the owner either under Schedule B or under Schedule D. If it is under Schedule D the owner will pay tax on the grant he receives, and if he is a Surtax payer at a high rate; instead of £10 he may receive 5s., and instead of 3s. 4d., it may be a matter of 2d. If he does not pay tax at such a high rate, the amount, of course, will be proportionately more, but it is only the taxpayer at a very low overall rate who receives something which is significant. As I understand it, if such woods are acquired within 30 years of the time of their original planting the original grant, plus maintenance grants, plus interest at 3 per cent. per annum, will be deducted from the purchase price or compensation.
I do not know whether the Minister has worked out the figures, but I have calculated that. in the case of a wood 29 years old, the £10 grant, with com-

pound interest at 3 per cent. per annum plus the small maintenance grants, would amount to rather over £31 per acre. I do not know whether the Minister agrees, but I am sure that, in the great majority of cases of Scots pine planted on moderate land, and certainly in the case of oak and beech, the planting of which the right hon. Gentleman would surely like to encourage, it is extremely unlikely that the market value of a plantation 29 years old would be as much as £31. In those cases, if in lieu of Death Duties certain woods are handed over, will it be necessary to hand over an additional small sum of money to make up the difference, or will some other arrangement be made? I can scarcely believe that particular form of hardship is really intended.
I would like to know also the basis on which the value is to be calculated in the case of any such woods being taken over. Is it to be calculated on the basis of cost of production, plus a certain reasonable interest per annum up to the time of acquisition? Is it to be based on market value, because woods at auctions are rather chancey; or is it to be based on the estimated final value appropriately discounted? That is a very important matter. I think the deduction from what I had tried to show is that if a person is paying Surtax at a high rate, he might be better advised, even if he did dedicate his woods, not to accept the grants, because he would possibly be better off without them. It sounds odd but this liability for repayment may become a very serious burden. I would like that matter to be looked into again. Is it clear, too, that this liability melts away after 30 years? A person it seems is to carry a very heavy liability for 29 or 30 years, when it melts away suddenly. Would it not be better if there were some form of scaled reduction in this liability rather than a sudden cessation?
Finally, I think the whole approach to the forestry dedication plan has been conducted rather on the poor relation basis. I hoped, when the original announcement was made, it would be a little more generous and that we would not be subjected to these unwarranted delays. I think this is a poor return to the private woodland owners who, during two wars, have produced enough timber to keep the coal mines in production. I think too that, since the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have stumped the


country talking to farmers about the great twin pillars of their policy, efficiency and stability, they should at least give forestry the same advantages as are being given to agriculture. Undoubtedly we have in this Bill the pillar of efficiency, but I would like to think that the right hon. Gentleman would add to the structure the other great pillar of stability.

5.24 p.m.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House will have enjoyed, as I did, the very well-informed and constructive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who talks with great authority on all questions of forestry. All the speeches that have been made this afternoon have reflected a general measure of approval of the Bill. In view of the appalling shortage of timber, we will support the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture in every way in his efforts to replant the felled areas and ensure that British woodlands in future are as fully productive and properly managed as is possible.
The framework of this Forestry Bill has certain similarities to the framework of the Agriculture Bill. In the Agriculture Bill, the farmers and landowners are asked to accept direction and control in return for a guaranteed price and assured market. In this Bill the woodland owner is asked to pledge himself by dedication to efficient woodland management, but, unlike the Agriculture Bill, there is no mention of any price structure or assured market for home-grown timber. Since the success of these two Measures ultimately depends upon the degree of confidence which the Government's policy inspires both to farmers and woodland owners, my criticism of the Bill is that, although it is called a Forestry Bill and although it sets out the machinery of dedication, it has not been accompanied by any clear statement of policy to enable the woodland owner to assess in any objective way the pros and cons of dedication.
I sympathise with the Minister of Agriculture in the very anomalous position in which he finds himself. As Minister of Agriculture he is charged with the direction of forestry policy. In the pages of this Bill, he is making an appeal to woodland owners to dedicate. The wages of those who are engaged in forestry come

under the terms of the agricultural wages Bill, but the crux of the whole matter—and this is a question to which every woodland owner who is considering dedication must pay attention—is the price of home-grown timber. Nothing has been said about that. Unfortunately, the price of home-grown timber is outside the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and is in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. The hard fact remains that, whereas the wages of those engaged in forestry, being allied to the agricultural minimum wage, have increased roughly speaking, since 1939, by 117 per cent., taking into consideration shorter hours and increased holidays, to which no one objects, it was not until two months ago that there was any increase in the price of home-grown timber, and even now, in spite of the recent increase, the price-level is not more than 25 per cent. above the prewar figure. The uncertainty as to what will be the price of home-grown timber in future is bound to weigh very heavily with any woodland owner. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say, quite correctly, that the demand for home-grown timber at the moment, in view of the shortage all over the country, is so obvious that the market is assured. That is true, in the same way as it was true throughout the war. But equally the act of dedication on the part of a woodland owner is permanent and binding, as indeed it must be, except in very exceptional circumstances. He must therefore look very much further ahead to a period when we hope the overall shortage of timber in this country will not be as acute as it is now.
I want briefly to make one or two more detailed comments on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman cleared up some doubt in my mind, and I think in the minds of many hon. Members, about the alternative to the dedication scheme. He has made it quite clear that a woodland owner is free either to dedicate, or not as he wishes and, provided that the management of his woodlands is above reproach, there will be no interference or threat of compulsory purchase. That is quite clear. I hope the Minister will also make it clear whether, in the event of a woodland owner not dedicating but managing his woodlands properly on his own, he will receive any grants. Will he receive the grants


available under the 1919 Act? Many woodland owners are still in the dark about that. The point is an important one for this reason. If the Forestry Commission are to be the ultimate authority for deciding whether a particular area of woodland offered to them by an owner for dedication shall or shall not be accepted, it follows that, if the Forestry Commission should decide, that they will not accept dedication, that woodland owner may not get any further grants towards continuing to manage his woodlands properly. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information on that point.
I now want to refer to the planting grant of £10 per acre and the maintenance grant of 3s. 4d. per acre. I understand that these will he reviewed at the end of five years. No doubt these grants are very acceptable, but when the potential dedicator of his woodland is considering the question of grant, he will find that the actual size of the grant is merely a gesture from the Government, because they do not bear much relation to the cost either of planting or of maintaining woodland. The cost of replanting today is in the neighbourhood of £30 per acre, and the cost of cleaning and maintaining a new plantation, at any rate for the first four years, until such time as the young trees have got their heads sufficiently up to be above the undergrowth, amounts, according to my calculation, to £3 10s. per acre per cleaning. Recently planted areas, where timber has been felled before the planting commenced, require at least two cleanings a year, so that the total cost is certainly not less than £7 per acre. Moreover, these grants of £10 per acre for planting and 3s. 4d. per acre for maintaining, are subject to tax where the owner elects to be assessed under Schedule D.
I next wish to raise a point upon Clause 6 of the Bill, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland put, but which I want to put from a slightly different aspect. If, after a grant has been received, a wood is compulsorily acquired because the woodland owner has not managed his woodland satisfactorily, the sum representing the grant he has received is deducted from his compensation and is repayable at 3 per cent. per annum. Can we have an assurance that, in arriving at the correct

repayment figure, the amount of tax which the woodland owner may have paid on the grant he received, before his woodlands were compulsorily acquired, will be deducted from the annual repayment which he has to make to the Forestry Commission? Otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland said, he will, in fact, be paying back, in his 3 per cent. per annum plus compound interest, a sum total of more than he has received.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, when speaking in the Forestry Debate, on 24th October last year, referred to the all-important question of houses. He said:
As with agriculture so with afforestation no homes, no men; no men, no trees; no trees, no safety for this country.''—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 24th October, 1946; Vol. 428, c. 58.]
He could not have said a greater truth. Again, the woodland owner who is only too anxious to dedicate, only too anxious to see his woodland property managed efficiently, is today faced with the overriding problem of shortage of houses. I believe it was in the same Debate that the right hon. Gentleman told us that the Ministry of Works was building 1,200 cottages for the exclusive use of forestry workers, a wise and sensible course to adopt. But the private woodland owner who is short of a house, and who wants to employ an extra forester, has to build one without any subsidy, even assuming that he can get materials or a licence to build a house for the exclusive use of a woodman.
To sum up, the dedication scheme is certainly designed to ensure that woodland areas are fully productive and efficiently run. But the act of dedication by which the owner fulfils his part is only half the bargain. The Government must fulfil their obligations in accepting the act of dedication. So far, the right hon. Gentleman has been singularly silent on the part which the Government intend to play in fulfilling their obligations where timber prices are concerned. I only hope that, before long, their attitude towards this matter will be a little less lukewarm, and a little more definite, than it has been today.

5.35 P.m.

Mr. York: My first point is in regard to the dedication document. The Minister seemed rather over-con-


fident about this dedication arrangement. My experience is rather different from his. I admit the figures which he has given, but the acreage which is to come, not in the dedication deed but under an agreement to consider dedication schemes, is an entirely different thing. The owners have not yet been given an opportunity to decide whether to dedicate. I have been trying to find out what was the reaction of woodland owners to the dedication scheme, and in certainly two cases of well-managed woodlands, the owners or their agents said to me, "We have to dedicate." That was their outlook. When I questioned them they said, "If we do not dedicate we shall not get any help in these times of unnecessarily high prices, and also we shall stand in danger of compulsory acquisition." The Minister has certainly gone some way today to dispel that bogy.
To make quite sure I have understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, I will put the matter in this way. There are three alternatives before a woodland owner. The first is to dedicate and get the full grants—on whichever basis he elects. The second is to manage his property efficiently and well, and to obtain the planting grant. The third is, that, if he fails to maintain his woods efficiently, he can expect, quite rightly, compulsory purchase. I believe that those are the alternatives, but there is one question in connection with the third alternative which I wish to ask. The Minister said that compulsory acquisition would be difficult to carry out. Am I not right in saying that the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, can be used by his Department in order to acquire any land under this- Bill?

Mr. T. Williams: indicated dissent.

Mr. York: I am glad to have that indication from the Minister that I am wrong.
I wish to press briefly the criticism as to the dedication for all time. It is rigid, and we do not require so much rigidity in land utilisation, I can visualise many occasions upon which it may be wished to change the use of land which is covered with trees. The Forestry Commission should be the very last to be given the opportunity to judge whether it should or should not be changed, because obviously the Commission will be preju-

diced in favour of keeping that land under trees. The mere fact that the Minister has had the Bill amended, so as to give a further right of appeal, if one can call it so, to himself, is really not making the appeal very much stronger, for this reason: the advice which the Minister of Agriculture receives will come from the Forestry Commission. Therefore, that is really of little value.
I strongly suggest that the right way in which to approach this matter of appeal, is for disputes with the Forestry Commission over the change in the use of dedicated land to be heard before the Land Tribunal under the Agriculture Pill. I see no reason why that body should not deal with this matter. If that is not practicable, for reasons which I hope to obtain at a later stage, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) suggested, the matter should be decided by arbitration as provided in Clause 5. I am frequently asked by owners and agents whether or not I consider that they should dedicate. I am in great difficulty in answering their question. In the case of the owners of the larger estates, I can say quite simply, "Yes, obviously it is in your interest to dedicate." But in the case of the man with one woodland of, say, five, ten or twenty acres, it is very difficult. It is difficult for anybody to advise until we know more about what the Ministry have in mind.
The latest report which I received from one agent about the dedication of a small woodland was that, in his opinion, it was necessary to dedicate. The area in question was something like 30 acres He said that, after thinking the matter out and talking it over with various experts, he had come to the conclusion that the safest thing would be to dedicate. The Minister says, and we have so understood in this House, that in fact the Forestry Commission will be quite incapable of dealing with any dedication in the case of small woodlands, at any rate for a long number of years. They do not know the conditions under which they will have to operate. While the owners of large woodlands are fairly clear upon what they must do, I suggest to the Minister and to the Forestry Commission that they should concentrate upon making clear the, procedure which the owner of a small woodland should adopt. They should explain


the methods which are open to him, and the help which can be afforded. If that is done, then I shall feel more confident about this matter. I hope that we shall have the opportunity of taking up one or two small points in Committee. Apart from that, I welcome this Bill.

5.44 P.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Owners of private woodlands are asked to dedicate their woodlands in advance of the establishment of a State service which has proved its competence to accept and supervise dedicated woodland, and, as many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have pointed out, in advance of the specific terms of the deed of covenant with which they will have to comply. As the Minister pointed out, they must do this for all time. Thus, they must lay a permanent burden upon their successors to reafforest their property in such a way as the Forestry Commission may direct. I must confess that, with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), who speaks with authority as a former Forestry Commissioner, I do not like the irrevocable nature of the decision which must be made. There ought to be an escape clause somewhere. To allow reconsideration by the end of each rotation perhaps would give rise to too many administrative difficulties.
There would not be the same difficulty in allowing a fresh decision to be made by an inheritor at each succession. That would be more fair than the present proposals, and it would remove a doubt from the minds of many owners of woodlands who are wondering whether they have the right to commit their successors in this way. It is true that the Bill enables the Forestry Commissioners to allow dedicated land to be used for some purpose other than the growing of timber and that, in the event of a dispute, the matter can be referred to the Minister, in the case of England and Wales, or to the Secretary of State, in the case of Scotland. But the circumstances in which land may be withdrawn from dedication have not been disclosed. As more than one speaker on this side of the House has pointed out, the trouble is that both the Minister and the Secretary of State, are responsible for Government policy and for the actions of the Forestry Commission. Thus, to that

extent, they are judges in their own case.
We would like to see some provision for arbitration in such cases which, I think, are likely to be rare—cases in which an heir desires to divest himself of the obligations fastened upon the inheritance. Though the Minister has stressed the voluntary nature of the dedication scheme, I think there is still a widespread feeling that the alternative to failure to dedicate land which is suitable is State acquisition. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) thought the position was quite clear. I want to bring before the House two pieces of evidence which make me think that there is a doubt about it. If there is no doubt in this House, at least there is a doubt in the country. First, I want to quote a correction from the Land Agents Society's Journal of January, 1947. It is headed:
Correction—re Dedication of Woodlands.
It says:
We have been asked to correct an error in the report of the meeting of the Somerset and Dorset branch which appeared on page 257 of the November, 1946, Journal. In the general discussion on the subject of the dedication of woodlands there appeared in paragraph 5 the following expression of opinion: All the woodlands on an estate need not be dedicated, and plantations expressly reserved for the payment of death duties can be excluded from dedication on that account. We are asked by Mr. D. Stileman, of the Forestry Commission, who attended the meeting, to say that, All woodlands judged to be suitable and necessary for timber production must either be dedicated or acquired by the State; plantations which have been formed or are reserved for the payment of death duties can only be dealt with in the felling proposals in the plan of operations; clearly, they cannot be excluded from dedication.
If that is wrong, then I think a further correction should be published by the Forestry Commission. The second piece of evidence is more recent. In "The Times" newspaper—which we in Scotland call the London "Times," of 5th January, 1947, the Forestry Commissioners advertised for a divisional officer for land acquisition duties, at a salary of ii,000 a year. My friend Professor R. V. Lennard, of Oxford, in drawing attention to this advertisement, proved in a letter which he wrote to "The Times" last week, that, at the end of the year covered by the Forestry Commissioners' latest report, the Forestry Commission already owned over 336,000 acres of plantable


land not yet planted, and he suggested that an appointment of this kind, of a divisional officer for land acquisition duties, might well be postponed for a further few years.
Most of us would accept the necessity of compulsory acquisition only if we could be sure that it would lead to increased planting or to more efficient management, but can it? It is far better for estate woodlands to be operated by estate staffs than by the Forestry Commission, if reasonable efficiency can be secured. The estate staff will attend to all the duties on the estate, as well as to hedgerow timber, fences and general maintenance, and the private forester will provide timber with less drain on public funds than in the case of state acquisition. Moreover, the Forestry Commission already has its plate full, as the letter from Professor Lennard has shown. It has more plantable land than it can digest, and the only alternative to making it economical and worthwhile for the owner to dedicate might well be that the land should revert to jungle.
Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that there is no indication in the Bill of the minimum size of woodlands which may be accepted under dedication agreements. Private woodlands have not been extensively supported by the State in this country. In the 20 years between the wars, for every £1 of public money spent on private forestry, over £20 has been spent on State forests, and yet, in spite of this, privately-owned forests have saved this country in two wars. Many of the large forestry estates have been broken up under the pressure of high taxation. They have been replaced by a number of smaller owners, whose plantable acres are not individually large but which can, in the aggregate, make a great contribution to our total timber production. In cases such as these, the difficulties involved—the preparation of a working plan, the skilled supervision of someone of head forester status and the lack of centralised nursery facilities for the provision of seedings and transplants—could be overcome by more co-operative management. It seems to me unlikely that this will come about spontaneously, and I regret that the Bill makes no provision for the financial assistance which might be necessary in the early stages if co-operative management is to be encouraged.
The Minister has introduced this Bill with few but fair words. The House has welcomed the Bill and his words. What it wants now, and it wants it at once, is the Deed.

5.55 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I hope the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. I think I ought to declare my interest in this matter. I own woodlands; I have 'not yet dedicated them, though I hope to do so, but I shall want to see this covenant before I do. In the meantime, I am getting on with my working plan. I think we are all anxious to play a part in the Government's programme to re-establish our forests, because, if this national programme is delayed, and if this scheme of dedication is not a success, our position with regard to timber in the future will be very serious. I think, therefore, it is vital that every inducement should be given to owners to dedicate, if possible, and I hope that any small suggestions which we make in this Debate will be given full consideration.
That brings me to the question of grants. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye), I think, looked a little askance at them, but it will be remembered that, apart from anything else, owners of private woodlands have, or will have in the next few years, greater expenses than the Forestry Commission, in their planting operations. In nearly all cases, they will be planting land on which the woods are cut by order of the Government, because the timber was requisitioned, and land which has been lying fallow for three or four years and is now covered with undergrowth, whereas the Forestry Commission are planting virgin ground. I think I am right in saying that the Forestry Commission, during the war, only clear felled some 2,100 acres of conifer plantations out of the 133,000-odd which they possessed, whereas the private owners, of course, had to clear fell in nearly all cases, and could not thin, as the Forestry Commission did, because labour was not available. That makes their task much greater than it would otherwise have been. In the case of young plantations of 25 or 30 years, which the owner probably would not have touched until they were 60 or 70 years old, he will have a double capital outlay to meet, and as


he has to expend that capital now, I think a grant is very well merited.
I hope the organisation inside the Forestry Commission which looks after the dedication scheme will be, as far as possible, separate from the rest of the work of the Commission. I hope the organisational staff will be separate, because of the different nature of the work and I feel that the smoothness of the operations would be assisted by having separate divisions for the two sides of their duties. I hope that, as far as possible the scheme will be extended to small estates. I believe there are many small owners who are anxious and willing to come in, and that, in many cases, they have the capital which they are ready to spend on forestry, but they would like a little more information as to who will be chosen and who will be left.
Next, I think the services that are going to be provided, and which were outlined in the White Paper, should include central depots for the larger instruments and implements, such as bulldozers, prairie-busters and draining machines, which no private owner can afford to keep, and I would like to suggest that there should be mall bands of skilled foresters able to go about and visit estates. They would be very valuable from several points of view, one of which would be in marking plantations for thinning. The use of experts for that purpose would be of considerable value, and, in the future, would probably add largely to the value of the final crop. I hope, too, that gang labour may be considered. Such labour can be employed at the right time of the year and need not be supported throughout the rest of the year by private owners.
I do not wish to detain the House for long, but there is one word I want to say about timber prices. I wish to support the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) that timber should be considered just as other craps are considered today, and that, just as under. the Agriculture Bill the market and the price for farm produce are guaranteed over a period, something of the same sort might be done for forestry produce. After all, it is a crop, and I do not see any real reason why something in the nature of a "February review" should not also apply to forestry products. Something of that sort would be much more valuable than grants far planning

or maintenance. I would rather have some system whereby the price and the market were guaranteed than subsidies. It would be a more secure and more businesslike manner in which to work, and I hope that the suggestion will be considered.
Finally, I want to say that I support this Bill in every way, and that anything I may say in the form of criticism is said to try to make good better. I hope it is a form of business that will increasingly come into operation in this country. I think that, in the future, this system—a kind of combination of public and private enterprise, working side by side and with mutual benefit—will characterise much of our business. Of course, we must be sure that private enterprise will be given a fair field, and I am sure that the British spirit of sportsmanship will ensure that it is. The Government must remember that, in this particular competition, one of the competitors is the steward and the clerk of the course as well. Unless competition is fair, it is of no value. If it is fair, I am quite convinced that the private forests will hold their own with the Forestry Commission.
Just before the war I went to Sweden and took with me a letter of introduction from the head of the Forestry Commission to his opposite number in Sweden. I paid some interesting visits to their nurseries, laboratories and museums. I asked to be shown one typical Swedish forest estate. I do not suppose that the one they showed me was their worst, because I am sure that, in similar circumstances, this country would not have shown its worst. In Sweden a great number of the forests are State owned, but the one which they took me to see was privately owned, which rather looks as if in Sweden, at any rate, though it is a country of rather nationalised industries such as hon. Members opposite would like this country to be, private enterprise in forestry can still hold its own.

6.4 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We so seldom have an opportunity to discuss matters arising out of forestry policy, or forestry administration, that I am sure everyone is very grateful that, on this Bill, the Chair has, perhaps, allowed rather a wider Debate than we had originally anticipated. But that will not do the Ministers any harm because, after all, in Debates on this sort of topic in


this House it is really the experts who speak. We have had the benefit of speeches from two ex-members of the Forestry Commission, the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), and from the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who is probably the best informed on this topic of any hon. Member in this House. I do not propose to amplify what has already been said, but I hope that Ministers will look at what they have said and take into account some of the very valuable suggestions made by them and other hon. Members.
If I merely very briefly intervene as the last speaker on this side of the House, it is to say, as my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said earlier, that we welcome this Bill as a machinery Bill. From that point of view, I think that Ministers have no reason to be vexed with the course of the Debate. As has been previously expressed—it is nothing new—the general opinion is that the dedication scheme was a sound idea. Most people have come to the conclusion that it is a useful part of the machinery for developing the forests of this country. It is all very well saying that a particular idea is a good one, but it is necessary to see whether the incentives for carrying out that idea are sufficiently good in themselves. I do not think that the course of the Debate has entirely proved that. It will be much easier to decide the value of this plan when it is known exactly what are the terms and the conditions of the deed. I hope that the Minister may be able to give us some assurance on that point. Some hon. Members may have an idea of what is contained in the deed, but the great bulk of us certainly have not, least of all many of those who are trying to make up their minds whether to enter into one of these covenants. I would emphasise what my noble Friend said, that it would be a great convenience to all of us if we could see that document before this House finally parts with the Bill. After all, the Bill has been through another place, and we are in the rather unusual position of a revising Chamber. If it is not completely settled in its final terms, I suggest that it might be printed and circulated in a draft form, as has often been done before in other matters. We

have had the draft Charter of the B.B.C., for example.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I am with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in that.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is with me, and, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I think that we are going to have it. That is good. I would like to make the point that, if Ministers are going to let us see this document, they should also see that we do not part with the Bill before that happens—that the next stages are not rushed ahead until we have had a chance of seeing that document. That is the first point which emerges, and, as far as I can see, the Secretary of State is going to give us a very satisfactory answer to it.
The second point, about which a great deal has been said, is in regard to the problem of what is to happen when a person wants, for some reason or another, to divest himself, if it can be done, of the obligations under the covenant. Who is to have the final say, and is there to be some form of arbitration? I think that, here again, the Minister, either on the Committee stage or today, will have to go into further details. I agree that we are in somewhat of a dilemma because, obviously, the general objective and the whole point of having forestry dedication covenants at all, concern the rate at which trees grow. The whole point is that they should last for a very long time, until full grown or longer. The dilemma which we are up against is that, while from the general point of view, the covenant should be for a very long time, on the other hand, this House is always very reluctant to legislate "for ever and ever, Amen."
Circumstances may entirely change. For instance, there is the possibility of the decreasing importance of timber or the more advantageous use of a particular piece of land from the agricultural point of view. There are all sorts of considerations. In the Bill one finds that the final court of arbitration is to consist of the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friends and I are not entirely satisfied that that is the best place at which the final word should remain. I hope, therefore, the Minister will not be too adamant when we discuss this matter in Committee, and that, in


the meantime, he will consider some of the suggestions which have been made, including the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) namely, whether this might be the sort of question which should go to the land tribunal to be set up under the Agriculture Bill.
The third point which I urge upon the Minister is that he should make quite certain that from the point of view of incentive there is, in fact, a financial incentive in these proposals. This afternoon we have had quoted some figures which I would ask the Minister to get his financial experts to scrutinise. I recognise that, when figures are tossed across the Floor in a short Debate, he cannot appreciate their full implications, any more than any other hon. Member who is not an expert in this matter. It might be that a grower would be better off financially by accepting the dedication and not taking the grant. If that is a possibility, it seems quixotic to have a scheme such as this which is intended, to some extent, financially to help the growers. I hope this point will be carefully considered, as well as the other point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) raised. Quite apart from the question of the grants, one of the considerations which growers must have in mind is the price of timber, and consideration should be given to the question whether better arrangements can now be made, or envisaged for the future, with regard to the marketing of timber. I commend that matter to the attention of the Ministers concerned in relation to the usefulness of this Bill, and not as a general proposition, although as a general proposition, too, there might be a good deal to be said.
This is a machinery Bill, and we hope to see it work out, as we all desire, for the improvement of forestry and for the replanting as rapidly as possible of the denuded forests of the country, although, of course, it cannot be very rapid. The Minister pointed out that 50 per cent. of the timber which was growing in 1939 has now been cut. That is a tremendous change, and has got to be remedied in some way or other as soon as possible. Therefore, while we welcome this Bill as the machinery Measure which it is, and we will do our best to secure its passage

through the House, we on this side of the House would like the Ministers to bear particularly in mind the three specific points which have been mentioned; namely, the desirability of our seeing the covenant before we part with the Bill, the desirability of the Minister looking into the question of who should have the last word in the case of disputes, and, thirdly, the desirability of the Ministers looking at the financial side and ensuring that if grants are intended to be given for the purpose of rendering financial assistance, that assistance is, in fact, received. I am sure the Ministers will look at those points, and I can assure them that we on this side of the House do not propose to divide against the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): The manner in which this Bill has been received by both sides of the House makes my task in winding up this Debate very pleasant and comparatively easy. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and is administered, as it will be, in the spirit in which this Debate has been carried on, with the good will of the private owners of woodlands in this country, we will reflect that we have been doing something very useful tonight in discussing a Bill which will be effective in assisting forestry in this country. If I do not deal with all the points that have been raised, it is because several of them are really Committee points which can be further discussed when we get into Committee. I shall try to deal with one or two of the main points which have been raised. For instance, the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was very desirous that the scope of the Bill should be extended to include underwoods. I would refer, in passing, to one part of his speech when he dealt with chestnut split-fencing. That would have provided a very fine test for some of those who took part in the Debate on the Civic Restaurants Bill. It might occasionally have caused a little difficulty when discussing that problem, if this had been one of the tests. I can assure the noble Lord who, I know, has another engagement and is not able to be in the House at the moment, that the point which he raised is covered by the definition of "timber" in Section 3 (6) of the Forestry Act, 1919, with which this Bill has to be read. I am sure that will give the noble


Lord a certain amount of satisfaction when he reads it tomorrow.
The main point which has been raised is the desire expressed, I think on both sides of the House, that the terms of the agreement—the dedication deed, or something approaching it—should be placed before the Members of this House before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It was extremely difficult in the early stages to have the terms of the agreement, because we did not know what would happen. We are now a little nearer to turning this Bill into law, and I can give to the House the assurance that we shall endeavour to have a model. I put it in that way because the same wording could not apply in every case. It has been my experience, in connection with local government, that time and again we have. sent to local authorities model bylaws which were a guide to them in drafting their own bylaws. I shall endeavour in the Committee stage to have a draft or model dedication scheme. I think that is as far as I can go, and I think also that it is a reasonable proposal. We shall endeavour to have something in the way of a model dedication scheme which will guide the Members of the Committee in their deliberations when dealing with this Committee point.

Captain Crookshank: Before the Committee stage?

Mr. Westwood: Before the Committee stage.

Mr. York: Will that include the conditions of the covenant?

Mr. Westwood: I thought I was meeting the wishes of the House in making this proposal. I cannot tie myself to the details. Surely, it will satisfy the House: if I say that a draft of a model dedication scheme will be available to Members. As I have already pointed out, the terms of the actual agreement itself will have to depend upon the Bill as and when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
Another important point that has been raised is in regard to the nature of the dedication, and the desire on the part of hon. Members that there should be some loopholes. The loopholes must be as few and as difficult as possible. I am sure that in the dedication document there will be an escape Clause, which, as I have already

said. will have to be made as difficult as possible. Because if we are to help forestry we must make it difficult to get out of the bargain once it is entered into. There never was any law without providing for exceptions. As I have said, the exceptions ought to be made as difficult as possible; but I understand there will be an escape Clause in the dedication document. Another question I was asked was, what was the machinery we proposed to use to make sure we were getting the right kind of land, and giving the right advice to owners of private land? The appropriate forestry officers are appointed in each conservancy, and they are charged with the duty of advising private owners, dealing with them in rotation, on exactly what should be done with their land, giving them the best advice possible That is the machinery we shall use. the machinery of the Forestry Commission as it exists at the present time, which will be at the disposal of private owners so as to give them the best possible advice in dealing with this particular problem.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present machinery is totally inadequate for this task, with approximately one officer per quarter of a million acres; and when can we have some improvement?

Mr. Westwood: As we make rapid improvements, not only in connection with the dedication but with afforestation. Our machinery is inadequate, but the Commissioners will build up the machinery in connection with the work as it progresses. Surely, that is the right way to deal with a problem of this kind? The other important question was that of arbitration. There will be—at least, I expect there will be—an arbitration Clause in the deed of dedication. But the question of an independent arbiter was debated in another place, and it was decided that so far as this Bill now before us was concerned, in the event of there being a conflict between a private owner and the Forestry Commission, the arbiter was to be the Minister of Agriculture in the case of England, and myself, as Secretary of State for Scotland, in the case of Scotland. I think that is a point which can be debated in Committee, But I can hold out very little hope of there being any change in the attitude of the Government so far as the proposal now in the Bill is concerned.
I hope I have dealt with the main points which were raised. If I have not dealt with every question put, it has not been through any discourtesy to those who put the questions, but because I think they are mainly questions which can be debated more fully, and replied to more fully, during the Committee stage.

Mr. Charles Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer one question, about which many of us feel very deeply, namely, the position as regards Schedule D and Income Tax? It may well be that he cannot answer that now. But we are giving this Bill a Second Reading, and I ask him to give an assurance now that he will go into the matter with the Treasury, to see that this is a real grant of money rather than something which is to be taken back immediately by means of taxation?

Mr. Westwood: I give the hon. Member the assurance that we will go into this particular matter fully in Committee.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, treating me quite generously, but the real point is: Will there be Treasury consultation, as it must be a Treasury matter?

Mr. Westwood: Definitely. But I have been long enough in this House, long enough a national administrator, and long enough not only in this, but in other Governments, not to give that sort of assurance now. We do not do things of that kind unless we have had consultation with the Treasury. I can assure the hon. Member that consultation will take place, and a full explanation will be given during Committee. With those answers to the questions which have been put, and with the explanations which I have given, I trust that the House will now give this Bill a unanimous Second Reading.

Major Mott-Radelyffe: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any indication whether the Government intend to look into the question of the level of homegrown timber prices, and to bring those prices up more in certain cases?

Mr. Westwood: That does not arise on this Bill. I am sure that if I had taken up time in dealing with that it would have been open to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to rule me out of Order.

Colonel Ropner: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take a little more of the time of the House in answering some of the questions which were put to him during the afternoon?

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1946–47

CLASS IV

BROADCASTING

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding 3,99,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of Match, 1947, for a grant to and grants in aid -)f the British Broadcasting Corporation.

6.26 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): I have to present Supplementary Estimates for grants to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the year ending 31st March, consisting of a sum of £2,970,000 for home services and £1,024,000 for overseas services. This is not a Supplementary Estimate in the usual sense. The original Estimate of N million was for expenditure for nine months only; that is to say, from 1st April to 31st December last. But as the Charter was due to expire on 31st December, and as at the time of the original Estimate a decision on the future policy of the B.B.C had not been taken, the period from 1st January to 31st March of this year was not covered in the former Estimates. It is that uncovered period which is now being provided for in a total estimate of £3,994,000.
Of the original £7½ million, approximately 6o per cent. was for home services and 4o per cent. for overseas services, although, of course, they were not shown separately. The Estimates are now shown under two Subheads to correspond with the clauses in the new Licence giving payments for both services, home and over-


seas, in the present form. In putting them in this way we are reverting to prewar practice. It will be remembered by the Committee that prior to the war the Corporation received 75 per cent. of the net licence revenue; that is to say, 75 per cent. of the full licence revenue after a deduction for services undertaken by the Post Office—that is, services in issuing licences, and inquiries and prosecutions with regard to unlicensed sets. The licence fee, of course, was 10s., and the 75 per cent. allowed was not sufficient. After representations by the Corporation it was raised to go per cent. of the net licence revenue.
6.30 p.m.
During the war period the percentage basis was suspended, and the Corporation, which was undertaking a very great deal of overseas work at the time, received its finances from grants in aid. Now, we are back on the percentage basis for home services, and the position regarding the percentage to be paid has been reviewed. As is provided in Clause 18 (1) of the Licence and Agreement, the Postmaster-General will now pay to the B.B.C. 85 per cent. of the net licence revenue during the first three and a quarter years of the Charter's term. Following that period of three and a quarter years, the percentage basis will again be reviewed, and after consultation with the Treasury and the B.B.C. it may be carried on at the same rate or at a different rate. By a further sub-clause of the Licence, it is still open to the Corporation, as it always has been, for an additional percentage to be added if during any period the amount granted should prove insufficient. The sum of £12,970,000 in the Supplementary Estimate represents 85 per cent. of the net licence revenue for the period. It is more than one quarter of the yearly amount on the basis of 10,750,000 licence holders, but that is due to the unequal flow of licence revenue over the year.
The amount set down for the overseas services for the next three months is based or an estimate of the cost of maintaining the overseas services at approximately their present level, on the scale required by the various Government Departments—namely, the Foreign Office, the Colonial and Dominion Offices, and so on. This Estimate has been examined by the Post Office and approved by the Treasury. In

accordance with clause 17 (1) of the Charter, the accounts of the Corporation shall be audited by chartered accountants approved by the Postmaster-General, and in addition expenditure on the overseas services is open to inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The essential feature of the B.B.C. peacetime financial arrangements lies in the decision to grant the Corporation a lump sum to be spent according to its own judgment on its own objectives, namely, to be spent on the full and efficient maintenance and development of broadcasting and television services at home. The Corporation occupies a position of independence in the day-to-day management of its business, and remains generally responsible for the economy of its services.
Following the issue of a Report from the Select Committee on Estimates in June last, the method of controlling the B.B.C.'s expenditure has been carefully examined by the Treasury and the Post Office, in conjunction of course with the B.B.C. The prewar machinery is being adjusted with a view to providing a wider knowledge than formerly of the developing costs of the home services. Whereas formerly a percentage was fixed for the whole of the licence or charter period, it was then not closely related to the trends of expenditure within that period. The percentage now has been fixed for a limited period, three and a quarter years only, and it has been fixed in the light of analysed forecasts of expenditure by the Corporation. In addition, the Corporation will be asked to furnish the Postmaster-General each year estimates of expenditure covering the three subsequent years, with forecasts of capital expenditure for a longer period. As the actual expenditure becomes known, these estimates and forecasts will be under careful scrutiny, and the trends of expenditure will themselves afford a basis for the renewal of the grant. It will not be assessed on a yearly basis. This arrangement will not interfere, of course, with the day-to-day responsibility of the Corporation for its internal management, but will enable inquiries to be made on a broad basis if such inquiries are deemed desirable.
With regard to the overseas services, to which the Government attach very great importance, it has been decided that no part of these services shall be paid for out of the licence revenue. The Foreign


Office and the other Government Departments concerned will, after consultation with the B.B.C., prescribe the scope of the services required and will supply information regarding conditions and regarding the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the particular country concerned, but beyond that, as was stated in the White Paper, the Government intend that the Corporation shall remain independent in the preparation of its overseas programmes, as it is in the preparation of its home services programmes. Finance will thus be provided to cover an approved programme, built up by the B.B.C. on the basis of departmental requirements and with the approval of the Postmaster-General and the Treasury. The amount of the grant will be adjusted in the light of those particular requirements.
I ask therefore that these Estimates shall be passed in order that the Corporation may carry on its work of maintaining and developing broadcasting services both at home and abroad.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As has just been said by the Assistant Postmaster-General, these of course are not ordinary Supplementary Estimates; they do in fact raise a very much wider subject than the ordinary Supplementary Estimates. In the first place, as far as the overseas services are concerned, these are new services, but in addition, as the Assistant Postmaster-General has himself said, the Vote here is for the carrying on of the whole activities of the B.B.C. over a period of time, and is not an increase in the general amount. Therefore, anything that comes into the Agreement can be discussed on this occasion. That being so, I should like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to give us some information on the subject about which he has not so far said anything, namely, the very great changes which have taken place in the programmes due to the present emergency. It is laid down most clearly in the Agreement that,
Unless prevented by circumstances beyond their control the Corporation shall send efficiently on every day (including Sundays) from such Stations during such hours as after consultation with the Corporation may from time to time De prescribed in writing by the Postmaster-General programmes of broadcast matte' for reception in the British Islands.
Clearly, those hours have been very greatly reduced, and that must have been

done after consultation with the Postmaster-General, and a really full explanation of the Postmaster-General's policy in this matter will certainly be required by us on this side of the Committee because, in accordance with the ancient and traditional customs of the British people, the first thing that went was any pretence of culture of any description.
The axe fell with a clang on the Third Programme, and although in every other branch of cultural activity some effort has been made to maintain at least a token connection with culture, no such attempt has been made at all in the case of this late but bright-flowering blossom of the B.B.C. The weakness is that the Third Programme is killed and the others go marching on. Might it not have been possible for the Postmaster-General to arrange, at least, as a token of the Third Programme, that something of the Third Programme should be included even in those hours which he has consecrated to Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra? I listened to the great message which the B.B.C. had to give to the world this morning; I listened to the news; I listened to the Programme Parade which informed me of the hours in which the Corporation were going to send out programmes—no doubt, as I say, after consultation with, and with the prescription in writing of, the Postmaster-General. After that, at this time of crisis, they said, "We will now hear Bing Crosby singing, 'If I Had My Way.'" Well, I have no objection to that. or a certain amount of that; but that the Government should think, that the Postmaster-General should think that, at this time, the only thing to broadcast is a drooling continuation of dance music, really does not square up to the responsibilities either of His Majesty's Government or of the B.B.C. I think that we should very much like to have some explanation when the Assistant Postmaster-General replies.
I agree that it is owing to certain circumstances over which he has no control that the Lord President of the Council, who takes final responsibility in this House for the B.B.C., and who spoke at some length in the last Debate on the matter, is not able to be present. We agree that that is unavoidable. I must say, however, that, at this critical moment, I could have hoped that some more senior person would have been


present, at least, on the Government Front Bench, because no less a person than the Lord President himself thought it worth his while, in the Debate on nth December, to wind up at very considerable length.

Mr. Galfucker: We have got quite a bunch of the boys there.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Oh, yes, wee boys; but we should like to see some of the big boys, some of the sixth form, for company. I would, in the first place, ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he could not arrange for certain hospitality to be given to the Third Programme, or some aspect of the broadcasting which the Third Programme represents, in the other programmes. After all, the measure which the break in the broadcasting represents of the whole expenditure of power at a broadcasting station is, I suppose, of the order of 100 horse-power. It is quite true that the major expenditure is, no doubt, in the switching on of the numerous sets, but, even so, the complete killing of the Third Programme, the blacking out completely of the B.B.C. during long periods of the day, were far-reaching steps indeed, and should not go without some explanation when the House of Commons has an opportunity of debating the matter.
It is also interesting to wonder whether the break which has taken place, like other things in connection with the crisis, may be a blessing in disguise. It was during the last war but one—one gets confused in one's memories of the wars in this curious and warlike century—that a break in the licensing hours was introduced, purely as a wartime measure, to prevent the continual soaking of people in alcohol. It is by no means certain that a break of some kind in the non-stop programmes on the wireless may not be in future a feature of our programmes for the sake of our culture; because it is by no means certain that the continual soaking of the mind in adventitious noise from outside may not, at the end of the day, be to some extent injurious to concentration and to connected thought, just as the over indulgence in alcohol during long hours on licensed premises can be.
This Estimate does give us the opportunity to discuss the educational and cultural side of the B.B.C. programmes as a whole. We have an opportunity now

of reviewing what is, in essence, education. We are not, at the moment, concerned with the salaries and conditions in the educational system, with which so many of our educational Debates are entirely concerned. We can now concern ourselves with something which is a great cultural and instructional medium, which affects the minds of people, not only adults, but children. Thoughtful people working on the programmes of the B.B.C. are already beginning to give this consideration. There is a very interesting article in the "B.B.C. Quarterly" by Janet Adam Smith on "The Children and the Wireless." I do think it is necessary for us, at least, to consider the proper use of this medium, and not simply the power which science has put into our hands. It is a medium which, like other media, will require to be used; and already educationists are beginning to give a good deal of attention, not merely to the beneficial effects of the wireless, but to its possible injurious effects.
I should very much like the Assistant Postmaster-General to consider expanding listener research to cover, not merely the commercial aspects of the increasing consumption of the wireless pabulum of one kind or another—which is mostly what it does just now—but, also, the effect of the consumption of this pabulum on those who are either moderate consumers or, in some cases, addicts. Wireless addicts, as we all know from our own experience, do exist, and in some cases they are much more difficult people to live with than addicts of alcohol or drug addicts. They, on the whole, injure only themselves, whereas wireless addicts, who switch on their sets all day and night, with their windows open, can do more to annoy their neighbours than the addicts of alcohol or drug addicts.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Burke: Do I understand that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to know what effect three or four hours of Bing Crosby would have? Is that the idea?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would leave that to the Assistant Postmaster-General and his consultations with the B.B.C. But it is certainly not three or four hours of Bing Crosby. It is 30 and 40 hours, and 300 or 400, or 40 days and 40 nights of Bing Crosby. Certainly, these are allocations of wireless which are rained


upon the heads of many people in this country. It is a real point that the adventures of "Dick Barton, Special Agent," have already been commented upon in a good many educational journals as interfering with the home preparation and evening work of the children. I do hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will not dismiss this as being a fanciful idea. I do think listener research should be devoted, not merely to expanding the consumption of wireless, but to the effect which the wireless programmes have upon adults, and, more particularly, upon the children. As I say, there is nothing fanciful about it. This has been examined already by the authorities and people deeply interested in the matter, and I do think that something should be done, if something has not been done already.
As I see it, the wireless is suffering from over-goodness in some ways. That is to say, it is acquiring a reputation in the country for anonymity and infallibility. These are two very dangerous qualities to associate with any works of man. During the war, the news bulletins were prefaced by the name of the announcer. We heard, "Here is the news, and this 13 Joseph Macleod reading it." It was clear that it was a human being and not a mysterious voice from Mount Sinai. Now that has been washed away, and we are left with "the B.B.C. said it, or "the wireless told us." The wireless tells us nothing at all; someone on the wireless tell us something, and he may be wrong, or he may be putting across a line of policy, not in this country but in other countries, which is definitely tendentious. This is the third point I put to the Assistant Postmaster-General. As a set policy. he should break down this tradition of anonymity and infallibility, and that can only be done by controversy of one kind or another, and by named controversy. The only advantage in a sponsored programme is that no one is going to regard a sponsored programme by the "Soda Mint Company" as the voice of God, but there is the danger that some people regard the mysterious emanations from the B.B.C. as something only second to that. The sponsored programme does not come in here, but the named programme certainly does.
I suggest that names should be used a great deal more than they are at present, and the policy should be to say, "This is Jones" or "This is Smith,'' and not just "This is the B.B.C." The Government should definitely seek to pursue that policy, and in that way they will get away from the accusation, which is common on both sides of the House, that there is bias in the programmes. My hon. Friends on this side of the House think that there is a definite Leftward bias in the programmes of the B.B.C., and I have heard, although I can scarcely credit it, hon. Members opposite saying that there is a distinct Rightward bias in the programmes. The only thing I can agree to is that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I should say, has a distinct grievance, because a definite anti-Communist bias is given in the programmes of the B.B.C.

Mr. Gallacher: Not a bias a boycott.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: And boycott, and that, I think, is definitely wrong and mistaken. If you have this gentle drip, there is the danger that it may be thought to be the thing to aim at, and that it is infallible. In this furious, warlike and quarrelsome century, drip does not correspond in any way with the facts, and I am sure that the nation which is brought up to regard gentle pink drip as the ideal of thought and policy, is heading straight for a great and lasting disaster. By controversy you can get away from anonymity and infallibility, because in controversy you have to give names, and each participant breaks up the reputation of the other for infallibility, and therefore both things will be secure. It is not easy to bring this about. The House exists for this purpose, and the system which has been brought into existence and preserved through many hazardous attacks from many quarters has disappeared in nearly all the other countries in the world. It is not a simple thing to evoke or conduct controversy.
As was said by an illustrious senior of yours, Major Milner, the art of a Speaker is to develop the cut and thrust of debate. I am sure you, Major Milner, would agree that once evoked it is not the easiest thing to control. Often one finds a mild Liberal in the Chair, with a mild Socialist masquerading as a Conservative on the one side, and a mild Conservative masquerading as a Socialist on the other. Real cut


and thrust of debate is altogether bypassed, and real Conservative opinion in this country, which holds many of its views very strongly indeed, is left unrepresented, and it should not be left unrepresented in the arguments which are brought out on the B.B.C. I do not think that the great arguments in the present crisis have been adequately treated on the B.B.C. There are many other arguments. On the last occasion when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) dealt with some of the talks by Mr. A. P Taylor, the Lord President of the Council animadverted with great scorn. I do not find any countervailing arguments brought out in that series, giving the views and opinions very-strongly held by a great number of people in this country. There is the series which is going on just now, under the title of "Power." In that series there is Mr. Alan Bullock, a don at New College, who says he is non-party, Mr. Bertrand Russell, who has very definite and well-known views, Lord Lindsay, who was promoted to the House of Lords by a Labour Government, with a very definite Left bias, at least before promoted.

The Chairman: I would point out that this is in essence a Supplementary Estimate, and that while the right hon. and gallant Member is entitled to deal with the B.B.C. in general, he ought not to go into infinite details.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was merely giving them by way of illustration. The last of these speakers is Maurice Dobb. No one can say that the other point of view is in any way adequately represented. I do not want to go into detail, because there are other Members who wish to speak who, I believe, feel that the Debate is wide enough to allow them to go into these matters. I do not wish to harass the Assistant Postmaster-General, but I do think that as we have had a discussion on what I might call the engineering aspects of the B.B.C., it is right that we should now regard this Debate as having a wider aspect. The fact that we are debating the B.B.C. at a time when a great transformation has taken place in their programmes make it extremely a propos. I have not attempted to discuss overseas services, because that will be

dealt with by some of my hon. Friends behind me, but I beg the attention of the Assistant Postmaster-General to some of the points I have raised. I beg him to believe that I have brought them up with the genuine desire to have a Debate of a more general character, the kind of Debate we have often desired but have seldom had, one which, I think, will be in the interests of the House and, I hope and believe, may be of some service to the country.

Mrs. Jean Mann: We are being asked tonight to agree to the rather large sum of £2,970,000 for the home and television services of the B.B.C. We ought, first, to ask whether we are getting value for our money. As a Scot, that is usually the first thing I ask, and I must say that I do not think we are getting value for our money from the B.B.C. I listen to the wireless whenever I can and I have been very much perturbed for months, nay, for some years past, at the kind of entertainment we are getting at present. An eminent countryman of mine, Fletcher of Saltoun, said: "Let me make their songs; I care not who makes their laws." I listen to songs coming from the B.B.C., and I compare them with the songs we used to sing in the days long past, when I was young At that time, we used to sing "It is best to leave you, it is best for you and hest for me," but today they sing, with nauseating reiteration, "It must be right; it can't be wrong." In the old days we used to sing Tosti's "Goodbye." but today they take an entirely different line. It is "Room 504," or A Lovely Weekend." We, who make the laws, are perturbed at rising costs in the divorce courts, at the homes for illegitimate children, about foster parents who have to be found for the children of those who have regarded their duties and matrimonial responsibilities far too lightly, those who are encouraged by the entertainment programmes of the B.B.C., by their band shows and crooners, even by "Itma" itself, to regard that sort of thing as the high-light of happiness.
I think we should balance what we are spending with the miseries caused by following this example. We ought to examine how much we spend in the divorce courts, and in trying to patch up the unhappiness that is caused, by giving the young people the wrong impression


of real happiness. With notable exceptions, such as Rob Wilton, Wilfred Pickles, Will Fyffe, and he who set the best example of them all, Sir Harry Lauder, the comedians of the B.B.C. seem content with smutty sex jokes. Today, 70 per cent. of their wireless programmes are based on jokes of this kind. If families are sitting with us we feel we want to switch off. The greatest insult of all to Scotland is the introduction of a Scots girl to "Itma" who is supposed to he falling head over heels for a little "twerp" called "The Governor." No true Scotswoman would ever have looked at him twice.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) talked about the injurious effect of programmes. I do not want to be a killjoy. I like fun and laughter, and heaven knows, M.P.s do need it. But, at the same time, all parents want to see their children avoid pitfalls, to see them on the road to real happiness. The B.B.C., in my opinion, are failing to point out the way to real happiness. I listened, the other night, to a request programme of what people themselves wanted and I was so charmed that I was late for a meeting through staying to listen to it. It was not, "It must be right; it can't be wrong"; it was the nostalgic, "I'll take you home again, Kathleen," and, "Love's Old Sweet Song." That programme followed the line of happy domesticity.
I would like to talk about the Brains Trust for a minute or two. At one time, it was the bright spot of the week. I have, in my home, a fairly good cross-section of the community, people with different personalities and with minds of their own. Everyone used to make a point of listening to the Brains Trust. Now, I notice, Scotland has rejected it on Tuesday night for the MacFlannels, in which we are regaled every three or four minutes by MacFlannel, who talks of "never having died a winter yet." Scotland gets a. 4 o'clock edition of the Brains Trust, and the other day there were five people in my home when 4 o'clock struck. I said we would listen to the Brains Trust. Two said, "Not It all; it is only the Brains Trust," and two others said, "Yes," so we listened. Within seven minutes everyone was talking about something entirely different

from what was on the wireless. The Brains Trust simply fails to hold attention.
Does not the Postmaster-General think we are due to get some replies to questions? The other day, a question was asked of great interest to the nation—the amount of the American loan spent on films and tobacco. I am sorry to say that although two Members of this Government were present, neither was able to say the percentages spent on films and tobacco, and the percentage of the American loan already absorbed by the nation. No one suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer raises as much on the Tobacco Tax as would wipe out the entire interest on the prewar National Debt, which was approximately £8,000 million, and which demanded an interest annually of £350 million. Everyone was left with the impression that the Government did not know what they were doing in allowing the loan to be so spent. It has been averred that the Brains Trust is strictly impartial; that if there is a speaker for the Opposition there is one for Labour. Note how it works out in fact. There are two hon. Members on the opposite benches who are more or less constantly present. The speaker for Labour is usually—

Sir William Darling: Professor Joad.

Mrs. Mann: —the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I consider that if questions are a definite political reflection of this House, there should not only be a representative from the Opposition benches to put their case, but also a representative of these -benches—they should be fairly matched—Opposition M.P. and Government M.P. The B.B.C., assailed on this, justified themselves by saying that they had the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and his opposite number the hon. Member for Rugby. Those of us who are on these benches know how far we can trust the hon. Member for Rugby to put the Government case. I notice that the chairman of the Brains Trust is very impartial. There has never been a speaker, whom I can recall, from the Government benches. The questions are of great moment—in the nature of "How much sleep should a worm have?"; "How long


does it take a snake to crawl from Cambridge to Penzance?" Is it alleged that the public are really interested in the questions thrown out by the B.B.C. on a Tuesday night? Who selects the questions? Of course, an ex-Tory candidate selects the questions—one who stood as a Tory candidate and failed to get on the Opposition benches. He is the question master.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: He does not select the questions.

Mrs. Mann: He is the question master.

Mr. Hogg: He puts the questions.

Mrs. Mann: Then, that is one crime less of which he is guilty. Finally, I would ask the Postmaster-General to take note of this: Every session of the Brains Trust ends with these words, "Questions must be sent on postcards addressed to the B.B.C., London. Members of the Brains Trust cannot answer questions by correspondence." I think that the Postmaster-General should know that the final two words "by correspondence" ought to be deleted.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I hope that the hon Lady will forgive me if I do not follow in her arguments because I want to put two points, and to be as brief as possible, as many other hon. Members wish to speak. I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he could tell us how much of this amount under Subhead B is to be spent on television. I represent a rural area, and I believe that the possibility of television in rural areas has not yet been fully appreciated. I think that if it were properly used and developed, it might do as much to build up life in rural areas as the cinemas in big cities have done to disrupt it. I would ask him to consider, when developing programmes for periods ahead, if a certain priority could be given for programmes for rural areas—for schools, for instance, because I think there is a greater possibility there for television than ever there was for the use of cinema projectors. I think that a great deal could he done in that way. I am not particularly critical of the programmes at the moment. I think that the whole of television. is rather on the lines of "2 LO" in about 1922. I would suggest, however, to the Postmaster-General that it might be worth considering when

setting up stations, not just covering urban areas—which having more people closer together will bring in greater revenue, but giving a certain priority to rural areas, which will not bring in immediately big returns, but which will repay this country by giving our countryside amenities which will help to keep the people in the rural areas.
So far as the programmes are concerned, these are clearly in an eliminatory state, awaiting imagination, ideas and experience. I know very little about the technical side. I recognise that it is very difficult, with the shortage of material, etc., to find programmes immediately suitable for televising. As time goes on, and as opportunities develop, I hope imagination will be used in developing these services. It might be suggested that this House should be televised, but I hope not before we are back in our peacetime guise, when, at this time of night, for instance, the Chairmen of Committees would be dressed in full regalia of white tie and tail coat to which we are all looking forward.
Again, I suggest that the Postmaster-General should seriously consider the use of films on television. There is "sales resistance" by certain interests against the use of films. It is suggested that the use of film on television, if greatly developed, will draw people away from the cinemas—hut I would ask him to consider the use of films on television, in particular for education.
The other point on which I wish to touch very briefly is the question of Subhead C, the overseas service. I should like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General or whoever is going to reply to the Debate whether he can give any details of the break down of this sum of over £1 million, and how far it is divided between the Colonial Empire, the Dominions and other countries, particularly countries East of the "curtain." I put it to the Postmaster-General that the House would he interested to know to what extent it is possible to maintain the effective wartime organisation, obviously on a different basis, for the sending out of news from this country all over Europe. My final point is to stress the importance of maintaining English programmes in overseas broadcasts and not to concentrate too much on broadcasting in the language of the country to which the pro-


gramme is sent. I do not think people here fully appreciate the tremendous influence of these programmes throughout the war. Large numbers of people learnt English in consequence of those programmes, and this still has great influence throughout Eastern and Central Europe as well as in Western Europe. I believe that it is most important in the future that these overseas services should be properly developed, the correct wave lengths maintained and wherever possible English should be used in preference to foreign language. I would be grateful to the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will give us some indication as to the extent to which the Estimate is being divided between these various services.

Mr. Mack: We have listened to a number of speeches of which hon. Members have recounted their experiences when listening to the wireless, and if to these were added my own I do not think it would have the effect of increasing the value of our discussion, and so for a change perhaps it would be better to speak of my own experiences in connection with my efforts to broadcast. I have tried many things in my life with varying success, and confess quite frankly to the House that I rather fancied myself as a broadcaster. That was largely because I had heard other people broadcasting. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should have waited for television."] Television is different and speaking of it, I am reminded of the famous lines written by a celebrated American ambassador:
For beauty I am not a star, There are others more handsome by far. But my face I don't mind it, because I'm behind ic.
It's the people in front get the jar.
I tried to get away with a little bit of propaganda on the wireless, and who is better qualified to speak on subjects like Rumania and Bulgaria than I am? So I went to see what could be done about it, and accordingly rang up the B.B.C. A young lady answered and I asked to speak to the "Talks Director." Incidentally, I was advised that that was the gentleman who should be especially contacted.
He was away at the time, but they produced a very jejune, friendly little human being who was quite a respectable official, and who eventually wended his way to the House to meet me. We got into a corner and I fixed him with my glittering eye, like Coleridge's Ancient

Mariner. I said, Look here, I am very much concerned about this broadcast, having heard all sorts of insinuations about the bias introduced into them and also about favouritism. I am not suggesting for a moment that they are necessarily true, but I want the version from you which should be as near the truth as you can make it." He said, "As far as the B.B.C. is concerned we are very impartial." When I hear the word "impartial," particularly in politics or when told that a particular man or woman has no political opinions, I immediately get suspicious.
I am now going to make a sensational statement to the Committee if hon. Members will bear with me. He said to me, "If you prepare a script, we will be pleased to look into it." I thought I would get a little bit of propaganda in and so I prepared a script on Rumania and Bulgaria. Here I have in my hand a most remarkable document. It is headed "R.P. Talks, British Broadcasting Corporation." Then comes the date, which is 7th October, and it goes on, "Talks on Bulgaria and Rumania."

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order. Is there not a very wide variation between the character of the Debate tonight and that of last night? Last night you, Major Milner, definitely ruled that when discussing bodies like the B.B.C., such as the Art Councils, hon. Members could not go into details to the extent that they are doing tonight. Is it in Order, therefore, to make the personal statements with regard to the B.B.C. which are being made now?

The Chairman: I am sure that the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) did not mean to reflect on the Chair by what he said. There is rather a difference between the form of Estimates we are now discussing and those we were discussing yesterday. This particular Supplementary Estimate deals with three months of the year and it is not quite in the usual form. Certainly I deprecate these personal views and too much detail. As I understand it, the Government, who are submitting this Estimate, have the power to direct the B.B.C. as to their programmes, but, in fact and in practice, except in war time or at other times of emergency they do not exercise that power. The


Assistant Postmaster-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think they take any part in directing the internal affairs of the B.B.C. and are not responsible for these routine programmes, and I hope that the Committee will bear that in mind. I am loth to restrict the discussion in any way, but I hope hon. Members will not go into too much detail.

Mr. Mack: I am very grateful, Major Milner, for those few words from your lips, and I am sure when the noble Lord hears what I have got to say it will electrify him and he will realise how relevant it is to the question under discussion. Perhaps he will bear with me for a moment. The date of recording was Saturday, 3rd August, and I was to give two five-minute periods which would not in itself be a remarkable thing, but believe it or not, I got a cheque for ten guineas from the B.B.C. for a talk which I never delivered. I want to know how that comes about. I would not mind delivering a talk and getting no money, but I was rather amazed at getting money for no talk at all. I said to myself that this was a problem which surely would require some explanation from our diligent and perhaps harassed friend, the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has to deal with the financial affairs of this gigantic Corporation. That is a point which ought to be brought to the attention of the Committee. I do not know who is responsible for the final selection of speakers—

Mrs. Leah Manning: Before the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) leaves that part of his speech, I should like to tell him I am awfully sorry but he has not electrified the noble Lord.

Mr. Mack: I would say to the hon. Lady that that native calm which characterises the noble Lord arises quite probably from generations of boredom and smugness and does not necessarily mean that he is not moved and motivated inwardly as a result of this startling revelation. Nevertheless, this is a remarkable thing. This may well be a rather expensive speech which I am delivering tonight. I might even be called upon to refund this money to the Corporation, but nevertheless would be prepared to make that sacrifice, in spite of the fact that on the last line of the account it says that the money is inclusive of expenses. I am not ashamed to tell the

Committee that I did incur some expenses in connection with my inquiries in this regard.
7.3o p.m.
I do not know whether the other point I want to make comes within the ambit of this discussion. I wish to be meticulously careful, Major Milner, not to place you in the unfortunate position of giving me directions or having to allow a very considerable deviation from the strict line of discussion that should be followed in a Debate of this kind. But would it be possible to ascertain from the Assistant Postmaster-General exactly who is responsible for these broadcasts? I myself, for example, broadcast for seven minutes on Poland and for that I received payment at the rate of £1 a minute. Incidentally, a friend said to me afterwards, "Johnny, you were marvellous; I couldn't recognise your voice at all." But the point is that no doubt some pull and a certain amount of influence are brought to bear, and one requires for this kind of work a certain type of personality which, I understand, is usually the result of a considerable amount of experience, and a pleasant, gratifying voice. I could make invidious comparisons between different speakers, and the reactions of some Tory speakers upon me would be similar to that on the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hogg) if he heard a broadcast by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). I myself have heard speakers who, I thought, should never be allowed to broadcast week after week as they do, not only because of the paucity of the stuff they put over but because, in my opinion and in that of others, they are not equipped with the necessary art and skill. Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General would give some enlightenment not only on this, but particularly on the question of who is responsible for the selection of the people who make these broadcasts, and to what extent influence can be brought to bear to secure their engagements.

Lady Megan Lloyd-George: I shall not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) in her argument about the moral effect of the B.B.C. on the listening public. I make only one comment on her speech. She said she could not imagine that any Scots lassie would fall to "Itma." I can


assure her that some Welsh female hearts are very much more susceptible to what is, I think, the highest entertainment value the B.B.C. offer.

Mrs. Mann: Unfortunately, the Welsh have never been as ambitious as the Scots.

Lady Megan Lloyd-George: They have never possessed an inferiority complex. Before I come to the general question of broadcasting and follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), I should like to raise one other matter with regard to Wales. As the Assistant Postmaster-General said in opening this Debate, these Supplementary Estimates are necessary for the maintenance of an efficient broadcasting service, and we in Wales maintain that there cannot be an efficient broadcasting service in the Principality so long as there is not a Welsh Governor on the B.B.C. I may say that a great deal of indignation was felt when the personnel of the Governors was announced and it was found that out of seven directors room had not been found for a single Welsh man or woman. With her language and her distinctive culture there is no single field in which our claim for recognition is greater than in this instance.
The injury was aggravated by the fact that it was suggested that Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd would fill the bill. I have nothing against the name—why should I have? —but the Prime Minister might just as well have said that the Lord President of the Council was an admirable representative of Scotland because he bears a Scottish name. That really has nothing to do with it. A very strong protest has been sent by the Welsh Parliamentary Party, representing all sides of the House, and we have now received a reply from the Prime Minister. We have been told that at the moment there is no vacancy on the Board of Governors, but as far as I can make out there is no statutory provision in the Charter which limits the number of Governors, nor anything which says that they may not be added to. Indeed, the very reverse is the case. There is a provision in the Charter that the number of Governors shall, unless otherwise directed, be seven, and that it may from time to time be increased or reduced in council. No period of time is specified for their appointment and there is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister from advising His Majesty to increase that number at the

moment. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will reconsider his decision in this matter. I can assure him that such a change of heart would be very much welcomed in Wales because this is just another of the examples, and they are continually multiplying, of the complete failure to appreciate that there is a special problem in Wales, and of the complete disregard of her claim to national recognition. This is, in fact, the second example in a week.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities has spoken about educational, cultural and controversial subjects. I should like to come down from the rather high, cultural level he attained to the dust of the political arena, and to say a word in particular about the need for more controversial broadcasting on live political issues—not academic discussions such as we have so often. We are continually being told that the B.B.C. are an independent Corporation, and that no control is exercised over them, but because they are independent they have a responsibility which is all the greater in this matter—a responsibility which they cannot escape and which they cannot shift on to other shoulders. After all, as we are all aware, the efficient working of democracy depends to a very large extent upon the stimulus as well as the vigilance of a well-informed public opinion—one of the things we lacked in the years immediately before the war, and it was a tragedy it should have been so. I hope it is a tragedy which will not be re-enacted because of our failure to inform public opinion in the future.
I believe that the B.B.C. have a unique opportunity of rendering a great national service in this respect. In the course of the last Debate hon. Members on all sides made a very strong plea for more controversial broadcasts, for more and hotter controversy. The Lord President, who was then speaking for the Government, gave his blessing and expressed the hope that the Governors would not be too timid but would take account—to quote his own words—"of the spirit of the House." That was in November, and what has happened? I would say that there have been fewer controversial broadcasts in the past three months; certainly there have been fewer than there were a year ago, and far fewer than during the war when there was a


political truce. That is in the Home Service. In the European Service a very different state of affairs prevails. The air is much freer and more invigorating. Listeners get stronger meat and they get a larger ration. There are talks upon practically all subjects—foreign affairs, domestic affairs—and practically nothing is precluded, so far as I can see, from those programmes on the ground that it is inflammable. There have been talks on the Franco regime, on Anglo-Soviet relations, and on the "iron curtain." Nothing is barred. Why is it that we cannot have vigorous programmes of that kind on the home service? Surely we, who have been born and bred in controversy, and who have-a heritage of freedom of speech, can take it, if foreigners can.
What has happened? I am told that an agreement has been reached among the parties on this matter of political broadcasts, which covers three points. First, there is the right of the Government to make a statement on national policy. If the opportunity is abused the Opposition have the right to claim a reply within three days. In addition, there are to be 12 political broadcasts in a year, actually one a month, on political affairs in this democratic country. There is to be a generous ration of 12 points a year, and the political parties can judge for themselves how and when they spend their points. I should have said that there are also to be broadcasts by Members of Parliament, what are called "personal appearances at the microphone," in programmes such as the Brains Trust and "The Week in Westminster," mostly of a non-controversial character. Then, of course, there is a certain amount of political discussion by outside speakers, and by politicians who are not Members of this House.
What are the reasons for this meagre allowance? I believe there are three, and it is important that we should examine them; otherwise we shall never remedy this state of affairs. I believe that the hierarchy of the political parties are nervous. They are afraid of this very powerful new weapon. They are afraid of its misuse and its abuse, both of which are possible. We have seen it happen. No-one will deny for one moment. that it is a possibility. It is estimated that about 40 per rent. of the electorate listened to General Election broadcasts, which reach a far greater number of people than do

public meetings. Many of us can recall the effect of the General Election broadcast in 1931 by Lord Snowden, and the broadcast by the present Leader of the Opposition during the recent General Election. Both may be said to have been the turning point in the campaign. We all have to realise that broadcasting is a tremendously powerful weapon, but that is not a reason for not using it. It is all the greater reason for using it, in order to increase the efficiency of our democratic system.
I think the second reason is that the B.B.C.—I am sure every hon. Member will agree with this—is thoroughly scared of political broadcasts, which have always been a thorn in their far-too-sensitive flesh. The classic example of all times was when a broadcast of 'The Mikado" was cancelled for fear of offending the Emperor of Japan. From this very fear, the B.B.C. are inclined to follow the line of least resistance. They are always thinking how they can displease the least number of people and how they can avoid, above all, Parliamentary Questions. There is a third reason. It is said that the programme value of political talks is not very high. Well, "Today in Parliament" has become a very popular feature. I am told that it is estimated by the B.B.C. that something like 3,000,000 people listen to it and that the number has grown since its inception to a very remarkable degree. If the B.B.C. will persist in tackling issues when they are stone cold and stale, of course political broadcasts will be dull and tasteless, and especially if they are discussed in an academic and theoretical manner. The B.B.C. should broadcast them when they are on the boil, sizzling and bubbling. That is the way to make controversy interesting, as every hon. Member of this Committee knows.

7.45 P.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: Will the noble Lady allow me to interrupt her for a moment? Would she say that the B.B.C. should broadcast hot controversy, at a time when it is first coming on in this House—before a Second Reading Debate, for example?

Lady Megan Lloyd-George: There can be no conceivable objection to that. What is really important is that controversy should be discussed when it is alive. Discuss it before a Second Reading comes


up in this House, or after it, or during the Committee stage. That is immaterial. Whatever is at any moment a matter of controversy could usefully be ventilated by the B.B.C.
I do not propose to go into the details tonight of particular broadcasts, except that I will give one example. It is the excellent broadcast which took place during the unofficial transport strike a short time ago. I think it came from Bristol and it was a discussion between a trade union official and a strike leader. It was vigorous and topical and, of course, extremely interesting. It had the advantage of coming straight from the horse's mouth, and coining, so to speak, straight from the course on the day of the big race. That is what we want, and that is the way to make controversy really interesting. Does anyone say that at any time during the last 10 days a live discussion on the wireless about the fuel shortage would not have been of great interest to the overwhelming majority of the people of this country? It would have been of great advantage. It would have cleared the air, in one sense, if not in the other.
I hope therefore that the B.B.C. will reconsider the whole of their policy in regard to controversial broadcasts. They might be able to provide a forum, say, half an hour or three-quarters of an hour every week, and leave the time open for improvised discussions on topical subjects as they arise. There should be no difficulty in filling the time, none at all. If it is divided among contending parties, giving a right of reply to the Government of the day, who, after all, are the Aunt Sallies, there can be no objection. If the B.B.C. are criticised from the Right, from the Left and from the Left Centre, they need fear no criticism. They will have kept on an even keel. If the granting of a Charter to the B.B.C. gives them a monopoly which results in stifling controversy, that is the best reason I have yet heard for competitive broadcasts. The B.B.C. rendered memorable and great service in preserving freedom during the war. They can if they will render even greater service to democracy in peace.

Mr. Benn Levy: The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) approached this subject as a moralist, and the hon. Lady the Member

for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) evidently is a moralist also. And I, if the truth must be told, am also a moralist. But my moral appetites are not satisfied merely by condemning popular tastes or by censoring them. The hon. Member for Coatbridge looked back to a rosy youth. She is evidently a praiser of days gone by, and thinks in rosy terms of the songs which were current in those days and compares them favourably with the demoralising products of today. She seems to be under the impression that at that time everybody was singing Tosti's "Goodbye" and "Come into the garden, Maud." But I must remind her they were also singing "Beer, glorious beer" and "Two lovely black eyes" and "A little bit of what you fancy does you good." Yet none of those seem to have demoralised the hon. Lady, and I am not at all sure that the corresponding product of today is really so demoralising either.
The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities complained on a quantitative as well as a qualitative score, and appeared to have a special grudge against Mr. Bing Crosby. I am bound to confess that if he had his way with that warm, melodious minstrel, I for one would consider it a most grave deprivation. [Interruption.] If the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) will wait, I will do him the honour of alluding to him presently. I am prepared to admit that there might be a case, that one might argue that a pervasive background of cheap or popular music might have a demoralising effect. That is arguable but unprovable. Come to that, it has also been argued that Wagner is a demoralising influence. One is up against the old business of arguing which is demoralising and which is not, and the insoluble problem of who is to decide. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities maintained that anonymity gave an impression of infallibility. That would be a minor reform. I would say that it was quite without basis to suggest, however, that during the war when the B.B.C. was less anonymous it carried less the aura of infallibility than now; or than do the newspapers. It is true that people say they heard it on the B.B.C. and that it must be correct. People say that they have read things in the newspapers and that it must be correct; more-


over, they do not differentiate between the signed column and the unsigned column.
The more important point was raised by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd-George). She raised once more the whole question about the desirability of controversy on the B.B.C. We all agree about the desirability of controversy, but it is not really practicable to a much greater extent than at present in present conditions. First of all, as soon as controversial or political matters are discussed they immediately evoke—I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities has returned because it is from such as he that there immediately issue strident lamentations on the ground that there is bias and equal lamentations from comparable figures at the other extreme of the scale. It is inevitable that the pressure of that kind of complaint and criticism tends to hamper the B.B.C. The only possible way of getting round that is to make the B.B.C. a free agent. It is no good girding at the Government —they cannot do anything about it. Nobody wants them to dictate what the B.B.C. has to do. The Government keep out of it, and they are quite right to do so. However, if ode wants a freer B.B.C. and one that is not afraid of its own shadow, one in which controversy can flourish and become a stimulus to freedom of thinking and speech, one must reorganise it in such a way that it is not one B.B.C. but several B.B.Cs. or branches of the B.B.C. in free competition, one branch with another.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: For a few moments I want to do what is rather an unfashionable thing—to say some good about the B.B.C. I hope this will commend itself to the Committee's sense of fair play because, as I see it, the situation is this. The Press may attack both Parliament and the B.B.C., and constantly does so. Parliament may attack the Press, though this is somewhat frowned upon in Fleet Street, and may also attack the B.B.C., a practice which is greatly applauded in Fleet Street. The B.B.C., on the other hand, are in the morally edifying, but tactically disadvantageous, position not only of offering the other cheek, but of offering

both cheeks simultaneously without being allowed any right of riposte. It is right that on occasions such as this we should try to make some objective and dispassionate assessment of the quality of the service they are rendering.
I want particularly to address my remarks to the question of the overseas service because I believe that this comparatively new development of the B.B.C. has made, and is continuing to make, a very great contribution indeed. The overseas service of the B.B.C. is characteristically British in many ways. Like the British Constitution, nobody planned it; it grew. It is probable that we should never have consciously and purposely adapted broadcasting to an overseas national purpose. It may be that as a people we are too modest, or that we are too insular, or maybe merely too lazy. Whatever the reason, the Committee will agree that we would not have evolved of our own initiative the medium of overseas broadcasting had we not been forced into it in 1937 by the constant streams of anti-British propaganda from Italy and Germany to the Middle East.
8.0 p.m.
It was for that reason that we had some organisation to bring into play when the war made much greater demands upon an overseas broadcasting service in this country. I think the service to the cause of freedom done by the B.B.C overseas service is very well known. In this connection, I recall attending a dinner at which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Vernon Bartlett) and myself were speaking. It was a dinner given by some of the overseas service people on the B.B.C., and I ventured to say that a Member of Parliament naturally felt a certain diffidence in speaking to those particular people because, whereas the most a Member of Parliament can hope for when he speaks in the House is that some of his colleagues will desert their tea in the tearoom or their papers in the Library to come and listen to him, these were speakers to listen to whom people all over Europe had risked their lives.
The voice of Goebbels is still, and we might have hoped that anti-British propaganda was also still. Unfortunately, as the Committee is only too well aware, that is not so. The language of anti-British propaganda on the air is different, but


the spirit is the same. On this account there is all the more reason for a British overseas service. I believe that the overseas service of the B.B.C. is serving not only a British purpose; I believe that in the quality and character of the programmes put forward they are serving the cause of freedom and democracy. By adhering to fact, they have made truth a mighty weapon in the minds and hearts of men of good will all over the world; and in matters of opinion they do not speak with one authoritarian, infallible voice, but give scope to the expression of different points of view on matters of public interest which, as hon. Members on all sides of the Committee will agree, is the lifeblood of democracy as we know it.
We often hear of the small account in which we are held in some matters by the United States. It so happens that I have here a recent issue of the "Saturday Evening Post" which devoted a large article to this subject under the challenging title of "Britain's Bid to rule the Air Waves." It says:
The British Broadcasting Corporation…is aggressively blanketing "—
I do not personally adopt the attitude "aggressively"—
the world with programmes that are designed to get people to think British as well as buy British.
Imitation, as we know, is the sincerest form of flattery; and it will not have escaped the attention of the Committee that the United States have in the last week or two followed suit by setting up an overseas American broadcasting programme of their own.
Having said that, may I for a moment or two turn to the home service? I agree with the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd-George) that in the treatment of matters of controversy and discussion the home service of the B.B.C. undoubtedly has a great deal to learn from the European and overseas services. Among the features of these overseas programmes are discussions of the sort to which the noble Lady referred; and I think that in political matters such discussions have a distinct advantage over talks, because both sides are simultaneously represented. This gets rid of all the argument as to whether the approach is too Left or too Right, because if you have the exponents of both sides present, you get a fair contest, and one

which appeals to the sense of democracy and fair play which characterises our people. It is, of course, true that there are discussions also in the home service. But there is, as the noble Lady has remarked, a considerable difference between the sort of discussions found in the home service and those which characterise the other programmes to which I have referred. In the overseas programmes there is a tendency for discussions to be unscripted and unrehearsed, and, therefore, to have all that spontaneity and life which is the basic ingredient of a successful broadcasting discussion.
On the home service—like the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) I listen when I can—it seems to me that it is far otherwise; the home service discussions give the impression of over - scripting, over - rehearsal and, generally, of too much preparation and too much caution. There is, for example, or was, a programme known as "Topics in the Air" on Friday evenings, and I have listened to some of those. My impression was that they were over-scripted and over-rehearsed. I did once take part in one myself, but I had the good fortune to have as an opponent the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), who is of such a fiery nature that it would take more than a continual cold douche of rehearsal and scripting to damp down the fire that is in him. Most of these discussions, however, are not lucky enough to have such a fiery and experienced disputant as the hon. Member for Devonport, and sometimes by the time they come on the air, they give a very dead impression indeed.
I echo the query of the noble Lady as to why it is that this difference should exist. I think it is because in some peculiar way the B.B.C. is rather apprehensive of the reaction of Parliament to more live political controversy. But surely that is the last thing of which they need be apprehensive. I know a lot of Members of Parliament—I am glad to say, I think I know most Members of Parliament, and, unlike the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), I do not dislike the faces of my political opponents. I look at them, not perhaps with rapture, but certainly with sympathy and understanding. I believe that all the Members of Parliament I know share this view—that they like the clash of opinion, and believe in our basic democratic principle


that out of the free clash of opinion truth will come. That is surely the principle on which we want the political discussions and controversies to, be conducted on the B.B.C.
The noble Lady referred in terms of some contempt to some treaty that is being arranged about political broadcasting. Whatever may be the truth about that, I do not think the Committee will feel that any such programme of political broadcasts would do away with the necessity for more live political discussion and controversy on the air. Apart from anything else, it is a well known fact that political eminence is not necessarily a passport to broadcasting excellence. There is this further point, that the B.B.C. has a great natural advantage in that it can bring together two people of different views who can answer each other then and there. It has an enormous natural advantage in that respect over the newspapers, who can only print side by side in two columns a for-and-against argument which, at the best, looks like compromise and, at the worst, is a very dull affair indeed. So I urge them not to throw away this natural advantage but to make use of live political controversy and discussion in this way, thereby ridding themselves of all this tiresome argument as to whether the B.B.C. is a bit too far to the Left or a bit too far to the Right. So long, however, as it only has individual speakers, it will always have to meet this criticism, however good its intentions are; and for one, believe that its intentions are good. If it adopts the system of discussion and controversy, with exponents of different points of view present together to argue the matter out, it can rid itself of this recurrent difficulty.
Finally, as we are discussing the Estimates, I shall just refer to one financial matter. I suppose one day some review should be made of wage and salary rates within the British Broadcasting Corporation to see whether they are compatible in these days with the quality of the services they render and with the experience and qualifications that they are supposed to bring to the tasks that they discharge. I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to tell us that that is one of the matters lodged somewhere in his mind for consideration, at any rate, at some future time.

Mr. Gallacher: I listened with very great interest to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and I gather that he does not like crooners. I do not know the difference between crooners and other criminals. Vic Oliver said that "if all the saxophone players were placed in a row in the desert, they would reach to—I do not know where they would reach to but it would be a very good idea." It would be doubly good if crooners were put along with them.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). We had some very good songs in the old days and some a bit smutty. We had some very good comedians and some very questionable comedians. In those days we had to go to the music-hall to hear them. I have been in music-halls in the North where a comedian has been shouted off the stage for trying to put over some of the smutty stuff we sometimes hear on the radio. But the radio is in the homes, and can be heard by the whole family, including children. Some awful stuff is put across. I remember that on one night when we turned on the radio and heard a story, I toll my wife it was almost unbelievable.

Sir I. Fraser: What was it?

Mr. Gallacher: If I attempted to repeat it here I should not only be ruled out of Order, but I should be suspended. I was so annoyed that I sat down and wrote a very strong letter to the Governor of the B.B.C. I showed the letter to a friend in the profession and he said "Willie, I should not send him that letter, he is great supporter of yours."I failed in my duty, and did not send the letter.
Reference has been made to the Brains Trust. I did not understand that it was instituted for the purpose of answering questions. I thought the Brains Trust was evolved in order to keep a fellow named Joad from worrying the public assistance committee. I do not hear the Brains Trust very often, but recently wherever I have gone I have heard reference to the great improvement in the Brains Trust since the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities joined it. He always made an effort to provide something like an intelligent answer. Friends of mine always


spoke about him very highly, and said he always made a good contribution.
Now I come to the boycott on the B.B.C. Friends occasionally tell me that they have heard me mentioned. I do not care about myself, but the party gets boycotted. Hon. Members who know him will be prepared to agree that Harry Pollitt is one of the finest, most reasonable, and capable speakers in this country.

Sir I. Fraser: Who is he?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) has said that she did not like the faces of hon. Members on the other side. Very often they would be much more attractive if they were kept closed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will understand that in the continual spate of oratory from other hon. Members, an occasional yawn must be allowed.

Mr. Gallacher: Hon. Members can yawn to their hearts' content, but when an hon. Member gets infantile, and puts the question, "Who is he?" when I say there is no greater or better known speaker than Harry Pollitt, and the hon. Member who interjected knows that is true, then that is a different matter. Harry Pollitt would be an asset to the B.B.C. [Laughter.] Yes, of course he would.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Member had better ask his own Front Bench.

Mr. Gallacher: Many hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are also kept off the B.B.C. That applies to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, as well as to Harry Pollitt. But hon. Members know that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee would be of the greatest value to the B.B.C. in dealing with particular questions.

Mr. Osborne: Supposing the party of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) were in control of this country, had a majority and could do as they liked, can he imagine that they would allow the noble Earl the Father of the House to broadcast?

Mr. Gallacher: I long for that day.

Mr. Osborne: I asked a question.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Gallacher: All I can say is, that if the party to which I belong were in power—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Even if the hon. Member were inclined to answer, I should not allow him to do so, because it would be far away from the Vote we are discussing.

Mr. Gallacher: I protest against the boycott of my party, and against the boycott of many hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Issues are coming up continually on which Harry Pollitt, and hon. Members on this side of the Committee, could give valuable talks to the people of this country. They could give speeches not only of an educational character, but of a really stimulating character. Nobody can deny that during the decisive period of the coal crisis, Communists, along with the general Labour movement played a very big part in bringing about a solution of the crisis. Let hon. Members make no mistake about that.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is no mistake about it that the hon. Member has wandered very far from the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Gallacher: I was about to get to the point. I do not know why anybody should try to deny that Communists, along with the general body of the trade union movement, played a very big part in solving that crisis. If necessary, I could mention names. How valuable would it have been if these men, who were so close to the crisis and played such a big part in solving it, had spoken over the B.B.C. Another point to which I wish to refer is the religious boycott. What are the religious people afraid of? Why do we get only one side over the B.B.C.? Why is it that it is only the Gehenna fire insurance societies who are allowed to speak over the B.B.C.? Why, when they are speaking over the B.B.C., do they never tell us the claims they have paid out? They get on to the B.B.C., they advertise their wares, they peddle their premiums, hut never once do they show you the paid-out claims, or any client saved from Gehenna and planted by the jasper fountain. Why should so much of the time of the B.B.C. be taken up by these people? When there


is a discussion of religion, do they bring in someone with an opposing point of view? Do they ever bring in a Mohammedan, or a Hindu, or an atheist, to have a discussion with the representatives of the popular religions of this country? No. The B.B.C. set out to keep religion secure and free from any open discussion of any kind.
There has been talk about controversy over the B.B.C. Let us have controversy on all matters that are of importance to the physical, moral and cultural wellbeing of the people. Why should there be any fear? Why should hon. Members opposite, or hon. Members on this side, be afraid to- discuss openly with Communists the theory of Socialism that Communists hold? Why should Tories be afraid to speak over the B.B.C. in open discussion with leading members of the Communist Party? Of course, I know what would happen. I know that the Tories have no case and that, face to face with Communists, they would place themselves in a deplorable position before the people of this country. Nevertheless, when there is talk about controversy over the B.B.C., it would be valuable to the people, young and old, to have controversy in politics, morals and religion. If it were possible to get a clear field for free discussion of all these things, I have no doubt whatever that, in the shortest possible time, the people of this country would have finished completely with Conservatism and would be moving very rapidly over to Communism.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Many queries arise out of the statement that was made by the Assistant Postmaster-General, but I want to ask him only one question before I proceed to make a few general remarks. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there are now 10,750,000 licence holders. Would he tell us whether the number has diminished or increased as a result of increasing the price of a licence from 10s. to £1?

Mr. Burke: The number has gone up by 750,000.

Sir T. Moore: It seems now to be the accepted custom, even on the part of those who work for the B.B.C., to attack, or at any rate to criticise, the Corporation. I propose to break new ground by saying something, in fact quite a lot, in support

of this great monopoly. Some of us may remember those early adventurous days in 1922 when, from that tumbledown shack at Savoy Hill, there came bursts and blizzards through the newly found loudspeaker and the not so becoming earphones. If one remembers those days, I think it is nothing short of a miracle that, within the brief span of 25 years, we obtain, for this small price each year, plus the cost of a modern elegant receiving set, so much interest, pleasure, education and entertainment, with such little trouble to ourselves. I would like here to pay a tribute to the man who made more bricks with less straw than anyone else in connection with the B.B.C., John Reith. I would like also to pay a tribute to the engineers, technicians, producers and artistes who have done so much to brighten and enlighten our austere existence during the past seven or eight years. They do not get enough credit for doing a grand job of work.
Having paid those well-earned tributes, I would like to make a few critical, but I hope constructive, comments. I would like, first to dissipate, as far as I am concerned, any belief that there is a political bias or a political complexion in the activities of the B.B.C. I have listened to the wireless day in and day out for the last 20 years or so, and honestly I have not been able to find any particular bias shown to the Right or to the Left. When one finds both the Right and Left complaining of bias, I think it is fairly reasonable to judge that the B.B.C. maintains a middle course at any rate as regards politics. The noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Lloyd-George) made some suggestions, one of which I would like to follow up. There are three points on which I find room for criticism of the present conduct and service of the B.B.C. The first is that they are too frightened of anything that is new, unusual, and, as she said, controversial. No doubt this is due to the fact that, being a monopoly, they have to serve all masters, God and Mammon included. The second point is that if they find that some particular item is an immediate success, they tend to hang on to it like grim death, work it to death and eventually bore the listener to death. The third point is that the announcers are too often apt, by inflection or emphasis, to stress the news they are giving, which ought to be most objectively recorded. I


remember being particularly moved by this during the war, when sometimes there was a gloating expression in the voices of the announcers when they referred to our bombing of Berlin and the known number of women and children killed.
8.30 p.m.
I would like now to go into a little more detail, and I feel that here I am treading on delicate ground, but I believe it is our job to express our opinions candidly and honestly, even though we may upset or distress certain individuals. For instance, I think that Vic Oliver was undoubtedly, and is still undoubtedly, a unique humorist, but he needs a well earned rest, so that he can restore and revive his humour. I would even run the risk of high treason by suggesting that "King" Handley himself should be given a rest, but I would earnestly urge, for the sake of the rising generation, who will never see his like again in this austere period of our history, that records of that rich and fruity voice of Colonel Chinstrap should be retained, and also the method by which he achieved it. Crooners, with their dreary, unmelodious, untuneful voices, should be definitely barred, and for the benefit of those with the weaker brand of eardrums, brass bands might well be restrained—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—both in their enthusiasm and frequency—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed, even when they are celebrating the taking over by the National Coal Board of the coal mines of Scotland.
I should like to say one word about the monopoly system of the B.B.C. It is wrong. We pay £1 a year, which brings in £10,750,000 a year, to which we are now adding over £2 million and I feel that we are not getting full value for that money. It would, I believe, be in the best interests of the B.B.C., and certainly in the best interests of the public, if there were two further corporations. In cultural matters, at any rate, competition is the very essence of diversity and entertainment. What has happened to that charming Third Programme, one of the most delightful programmes which the B.P, C. has ever conceived? Now it has disappeared, and even when it was alive reception was so bad in the West of Scotland that nine times out of 10 we missed it altogether. I am told that this was due to some interference from Russia, that Russia has a powerful station in Latvia

which prevented us from getting the full beauty of that programme. It seems to me odd that with the wit and technique of our engineers we should not be able to overcome that handicap, without even going to the higher realms of diplomacy.
There is one point I wish to make about the Brains Trust. Years and years ago, when I was a younger and more susceptible listener than I am today, I became rather tired of the hysterical giggles, which greeted his own jokes, of one member of the Brains Trust, and I was rather tired of another member who persistently wanted us to accompany him to Patagonia. Therefore, I sat myself down and wrote a postcard to the B.B.C., which I had often been invited to do. It was a simple question, and one which could have been easily answered. It was, "Why call it the Brains Trust?" I still await an answer, and the B.B.C. still maintain a coy silence. I repeat the question tonight through you, Mr. Beaumont.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: I propose, to start with, at all events, to adhere to the Motion before us, and I hope, Mr. Beaumont, that you will not have to call me to Order, as you had to do in the case of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Beaumont called a questioner to Order, and said that if I answered the question he would also call me to Order.

Mr. Cooper: I stand corrected. I wish to follow a point which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), when he referred to the payment of the salaries of the B.B.C. staff. A portion of the Item in the Estimates which is before us must manifestly cover the subject of salaries. From information which has come to me recently, I feel that there needs to he a complete overhaul of the B.B.C.'s organisation, taking into account the payment of adequate salaries.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member that his anticipation is realised, and that he is out of Order. The question of salaries comes under the Charter.

Mr. Cooper: I will leave that point. I hope I will be in Order in touching upon the qualifications of the staff who are paid by the B.B.C.—

The Deputy-Chairman: Again the hon. Member would be infringing the rules of Debate. That is in the Charter. We cannot discuss the Charter.

Mr. Cooper: I will refer to information which has come to me. I trust this will be in Order. Since I raised a matter of some controversy, when the B.B.C. was last debated in this House, many people have written to me on the subject of the way in which the B.B.C. functions.

The Deputy-Chairman: It the hon. Member is referring to an inquiry, which I understand is still proceeding, it would be quite out of Order to enter into a discussion here.

Mr. Cooper: I appreciate that if I referred to the investigation which is proceeding I would be out of Order. In point of fact, I have not mentioned that investigation. I think it is a matter of some considerable importance that those members of the public who have written to me on matters affecting the B.B.C., should realise that the present investigation is proceeding, that the matter is not flagging and that the allegations will not be sidestepped. In fact, the reason why this matter has not already been brought to a conclusion is that it is being undertaken, I believe, so very thoroughly—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is as far as I can allow the hon. Member to go. He must now get on to some other aspect.

Mr. Cooper: There is one rather serious aspect of this matter. It does not relate directly to the inquiry but refers directly to the way in which those who make contacts with the B.B.C. from outside —the members of the public, artists, broadcasters, and so forth—are treated. I think that we should expect from a public organisation that the public should be treated in a way that is entirely creditable. It would be extremely unfortunate if, for example, a situation were to arise where matters which the public felt justified in criticising were brought, perchance to an hon. Member, and that they were then victimised and threatened and told that if they continued to make, representations they would he dropped from the programmes.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is continuing to make certain charges which I cannot allow to be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. Cooper: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, and I leave that point. Perhaps it can be raised on some more suitable occasion. During the war this House was rightly jealous of the privilege of its Members. I was in one of the Forces, the R.A.F., which is a public service. I remember occasions when men thought that they did not get satisfaction through the normal channels, and they felt justified in approaching their hon. Member. When any suggestion was made in this House that a man in the Forces had acted outside his rights in approaching his hon. Member, that was immediately pounced on by hon. Members on both sides of the House and—

The Deputy-Chairman: Will the hon. Member tell me what relevance his remarks have to the Vote we are now discussing?

Mr. Cooper: The matter I am discussing is the question of the way in which the B.B.C. treats various matters that come before it. Members of the staff have to have contacts with the public, and is it not in Order, when a Supplementary Vote is under consideration which affects the members of the staff and the payment of money—

The Deputy-Chairman: No, it does not affect members of the staff. All questions of the staff come under the Charter, and the Charter is not under discussion tonight.

Mr. Cooper: There is one other matter that I think does come under the Supplementary Estimate and does not necessarily apply to the Charter. Several hon. Members have appealed for a greater variety and force of argument to be put over the air. It is suggested by one hon. Member opposite that it would be a bad thing if all the fire and vigour of discussion were damped down, and the suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) that the cause of it was over-prudence when scripts were submitted. I suggest that the reason why we do not get fire and vigour into our programmes—and these are required to make them lively—is that we are expecting from the B.B.C. something that it is not designed to give. There in Broadcasting House they are, sitting behind closed doors very often, and it is difficult for them to appreciate the current of public feeling. If criticisms do come from


time to time, they come almost completely from this House or from the Press. I am suggesting that it would be a very excellent thing, and I think it would have a good effect and be a healthy stimulus on the way in which the programmes are built up and the way in which the whole organisation functions, if there was brought into being a National Broadcasting Council, which could be representative of all interests and might have useful suggestions to make.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry, but, again, I have to draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is quite out of Order.

Mr. Cooper: I would ask for your guidance on this point, Mr. Beaumont. If a criticism is made, is it not proper to put forward a suggestion of how it might be met?

The Deputy-Chairman: Not on a Supplementary Estimate. It is for the Chair to indicate that.

Mr. Cooper: In these circumstances, I will conclude. It is a point relative to the desire which we all feel that, as far as possible, the B.B C. should represent, in the composing of its programmes, the topics that are of interest to the public. I mean this quite sincerely, and I say that, at the present moment, they take too sectional a view of the interests of the people, as was illustrated by the point made by the hon. Member for West Fife from the religious point of view. They take this sectional view, instead of taking the wide field of the public interest, and therefore it is very necessary that they should be encouraged by healthy criticism from this House. The B.B.C. should take a more critical view of its task, and should try to bring the abilities of those in its employ more into line with what would be appropriate to a great commercial undertaking.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope that the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all that he has said.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that the hon. Member for West Middles brough (Mr. Cooper) was out of Order on more than one occasion, and if he?

follows on with the same arguments he will be repeatedly out of Order.

Mr. Hogg: You have taken the very words out of my mouth, Mr. Beaumont. I hope that this Debate will have served a very useful purpose, and that those members of the British Broadcasting Corporation, whose business it will be to read it, will take serious note of what has been said. It seems to me that, in a series of speeches of high quality coming from all corners -f the House, there has been a degree of unanimity which, unhappily, is all too tare in our discussions. Therefore, if I pick out from those speeches one or two points which I desire to stress, I hope that I may De forgiven.
The first point which seems to me to stand out clearly from all that has been said is that, whereas the Foreign Service has come in for almost universal praise the Home Service has come in for almost universal contempt and derision. And perfectly rightly, because the Foreign Service has solved two very difficult problems to a much greater degree of satisfaction than the Home Service has attempted to do. These are, the difficulty of reconciling the rival claims of quality as against quantity, and the difficulty of dealing with controversy. Both of those problems have been satisfactorily solved on the foreign programme, whilst the home programme is dully lagging far behind.
I do not wish to cast an apple of controversy into this matter by suggesting that it is, perhaps, because the foreign programme is competitive, and the home programme monopolistic. Maybe that would be too directly political a moral to draw. However, I think I should be justified in indicating how it is that the home programme has failed to do that which the foreign programme has done so satisfactorily. In dealing with the controversy between quality and quantity, I must confess that my sympathies were with the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge (Mrs. Mann), and against her hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). The republic of taste is a democracy in the true sense, but not in the sense that one can simply count noses. The B.B.C. home service has failed utterly to deal with the claim of quality against mere quantity because, in a slavish manner, they have tried to


solve it by counting the noses or the ears, instead of, by measuring the ears, of those who listen. That is the whole reason for their failure.
All forms of snobbery are ridiculous and hateful, but there is no form of snobbery quite so ridiculous and quite so hateful as inverted snobbery, and it is inverted snobbery to which the high pundits of the B.B.C. are ardently subservient. They take their listener research and they mark down each listener into an income group. The one that belongs to the lowest income group is given the most weight, and very little attention indeed is paid to the quality of the criticism which they receive. For that reason, they constantly find themselves taking the easy way out, by trying to please numbers instead of trying to produce quality.

Mr. Levy: From time to time, we have heard several bizarre definitions given from the other side of this House, and now apparently, we are to have one of democracy. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would define what he means by this alternative democratic standard which ignores a majority taste. Is it to be decided on the quality of the letter sent in, and who is to say which is a good quality and which a bad?

Mr. Hogg: The B.B.C. and the editors of the programme are clearly to say. what is good quality and what is bad, subject to the criticism of this House, but I do not think you would let me go far in this, Mr. Beaumont, except to say that any editor of any newspaper or of any programme who slavishly tries to follow what he thinks the majority want him to say is neither a good editor nor a good democrat. That is true, as I believe it is true whatever view one takes of democracy, political or economic. The effect of that on the area of controversial talks has been little short of disastrous, for the various reasons which have been given from all quarters of the House this evening. The foreign broadcasting programme does not attempt to deal with controversy otherwise than by placing the opponents in a cockpit and letting them fight it out together. That is a device far simpler than that proposed by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. If one side wins, the losing side is not to be heard to complain. But the home service selects a series of boring

talks by people, most of whom represent some quite definite point of view but are never capable of being answered, and the result is that both sides complain, quite rightly, that the talks have been biassed. One hon. Member thought there was some answer to the criticism of bias which is levelled at the B.B.C. when it comes from both sides, on the sort of hypothesis that it a programme is universally execrated it must be all right. But that is a foolish argument, if I may say so. The truth is that a series of tendentious talks, to which no kind of reply is ever possible, which is what the Home Service attempts, is doomed to failure from the start. It is the wrong way of handling controversy. Controversy must be well balanced at the time it is produced, and if that is not done the Home Service will continue to be the object of contempt in the realm of controversy which it is at the present time.
I venture to make only two more criticisms. Here I am speaking as a Member of the Opposition, and hon. Members opposite who form the vast majority will, no doubt, disagree with me so long as they form the vast majority, but I think in matters of controversy it is the minority which ought to have overrepresentation. I think there can be no doubt of that, because it is the minority which is offering the criticism. If it is given only that proportion which its present strength is offered, it can never have a proper chance to put its criticism forward. That fact has been wholly overlooked by the B.B.C. itself [Interruption.] That interruption was neither in Order nor relevant. I was not seeking to make a party point. I was stating what I believe to be a fundamental rule of controversy. Some of us who have sat on the other side of the House have now come to sit on this side, and some of those who sat on this side have gone to sit on the opposite side. Most of us know that the Chair in this House, which is recognised as a model of impartiality, if I may say so, Mr. Beaumont, always follows some sort of rule like this in order to give fair play between the two sides in this House. We do not find twice as many hon. Members opposite being allowed to speak in a controversial Debate as are allowed to speak on this side. We find they work out approximately equal—because the minority must be given equal representation—and not in numerical proportion. Secondly,


where bias is actually felt—and most of us are quite unable to rid ourselves of bias, even when we are most desirous of doing so—bias must always be acknowledged.
I will give a short example, and then I shall have done. The other day there was a very good talk, if I may be allowed to say so, by the then secretary of the Fabian Society. But was he introduced as the secretary of the Fabian Society? Not a bit of it. He was introduced as an independent and impartial expert. Now that is the wrong way to introduce tendentious stuff. Nobody complains of having tendentious stuff from time to time if we know where it is coming from, and if we can see the hallmark on it describing its origin.
I have said enough to show that I think the home service is failing in its task at the present time, and to show that I associate myself with the various criticisms which have been made. This is the first time I have ever intervened in a B.B.C. Debate, because hitherto I was of the opinion that, in doing so, I should have to disclose an interest, namely, that I have, from time to time, coyly, but not reluctantly, received small sums of money from that great Corporation. But I have observed that this inhibition did not seem to apply to a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken, so I have only mentioned it at the end of my speech in case I was subject to criticism.

Mr. Burke: I think the Committee will agree we have had at least a good deal of hilarity during the course of this Debate; and we have also had a good deal about which the British Broadcasting Corporation may think, and they may possibly find some ways and means of applying some of the good advice that has been given to them this evening.
The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish, Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) asked about the changes in the programmes due to the emergency. I think he regretted particularly that the Third Programme had to be sacrificed. I agree with him in his regret that the Third Programme had to go. He made the suggestion that possibly some of the items in the Third Programme could be transferred to other programmes during the period when it is essential that the Third Programme should be put to one side. The

Postmaster-General of course, has the right to direct the B.B.C. as to the times when it shall broadcast, and in this emergency he considered it right to give directions that a certain amount of time should be cut from all the programmes, in order that a saving might be made. It is a pity that the Third Programme had to go. But I suppose the reasons why the B.B.C. selected the Third Programme were because, after all is said and done, the audience for the Third Programme, while perhaps of very high quality, is numerically small compared with the audiences for the other programmes. At the peak periods I suppose the Third Programme will not command an audience of more than two million; and throughout the normal periods it may be only half a million. Therefore, if a sacrifice had to be made it was perhaps advisable that a lesser number of persons should make the sacrifice than a greater number.
I am sure the Committee will agree with me that it was not advisable to cut down the regional programmes. As for the Light Programme, in these times of austerity if we cannot get heat we are entitled to a little light. Possibly for those reasons it was decided that the Third Programme should be the one with which to dispense completely. But I can assure hon. Members that when the emergency is over it will not take any very great length of time to restore the Third Programme. I am sure the B.B.C. will take note of the fact that on all sides of the Committee the Third Programme is regarded as being of very high quality, and it is desired that it should be restored as soon as possible.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: How much saving will have been effected by cutting out the Third Programme?

Mr. Burke: I do not know how much has been saved by cutting out the Third Programme. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities asked about listener research—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before the hon. Gentleman passes on, could he give an indication as to how long the cuts are likely to last?

Mr. Burke: The Prime Minister made a statement in the House today about industrial consumption, and promised a statement later about domestic consumption.


The B.B.C. programmes come under the heading of domestic consumption, and we must await that further statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would like to stress that point a little. As I understood him, the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that the domestic cuts might not be restored for months—at any rate in full—and it really seems that it will be rather drastic to continue the cuts on the wireless and not restore them until the whole of the domestic cuts have been restored.

Mr. Burke: The cuts have not been very great, and have only covered the hours between nine o'clbck in the morning and 12 o'clock, and between 1.30 and 3.30 o'clock in the afternoon. All the evening, which is the peak period of listening, in the lunch-hour and in the early morning, the programmes are still available over a very wide field. I can give no statement at all here tonight as to the restoration of the cuts. The only person who can decide that, of course, will be the Prime Minister, in deciding the general policy.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is quite correct, but the morning programmes are not separate. The morning programme is a blended programme, and it is only after six o'clock that the programmes separate. Up to that time all the programmes, Home, Light and Third. have been practically wiped out. I hope that on this or some future occasion something more will be said, apart from a reference in a statement on general policy by the Prime Minister, because that holds out no hope at all of the restoration of the Third Programme.

Mr. Burke: That is just what I said. Except for those periods in the morning and the afternoon there is a programme going on, and during the evening, in the peak period, there are two programmes. I do not think that the community generally will regard that as a very drastic cut.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke about listener research and its expansion, and desired that listener research should not base itself entirely upon quantity but should consider quality as well. No doubt the B.B.C. will consider that. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman went on, as so many other hon. Members have done, to tell us about his likes and dislikes He did not like

Bing Crosby, and apparently he did not like Dick Barton. I am not in a position to decide likes and dislikes, but this Debate, like so many other Debates about the B.B.C., is turning itself into a debate on the question as to what parts of the programme are good and what parts are not good, and what certain people like or do not like. I myself do not like certain things the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned, but there are many people who do, and the B.B.C., I suppose, must have regard to other people outside this House as well as to those inside. All I can say about anybody who likes Bing Crosby is that that is just the sort of thing they would like—there is no more to it. But it is not my responsibility; programmes are entirely a matter for the B.B.C.
The third point the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made was that the B B.C., because of its anonymity, suffered from infallibility. He suggested that the names should be given, and not kept from the people. So far as I understand it, the only anonymity on the B.B.C. is when the news talks are on. I think the reason that the names of the announcers are no longer given is; that it was thought that, in dealing with matters of news, there should be anonymity rather than the possibility of a person's being connected with opinions. That is also the case in the Civil Service. But, apart from the news talks, I understand, the names of the people who make the other talks are put before the audiences.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about bias, Left or Right. Others have spoken in the same strain. On this side, in the last Debate, hon. Members spoke about bias towards the other side. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) spoke about the bias in that direction. Tonight we have heard about bias to the Left. Really, in all these matters the B.B.C. must be allowed to choose its speakers as it thinks best. I am advised that in choosing Members of Parliament they do try to keep a balance. I understand that during the last three months there have been 18 Labour Members who have spoken and 15 Conservative Members who have spoken. With regard to the other speakers. the B.B.C.—

Mr. Hogg: I have noticed that statement, too, and I have noticed this, that in the Conservative case there were included four Brains Trusts—which are self-balancing, one has heard—and, also, the speech in favour of the blind on Christmas Day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). Do the hon. Gentleman's figures include things like that—which can only be put in by the B.B.C. to mislead people as to their real bias?

Mr. Burke: No, it is not put in to mislead people at all. The same kinds of talks are put in by people on both sides. There are Brains Trust talks by Labour Members. The simple fact of the matter is, that where the B.B.C. can and do consider the political alliances of the speakers, then they try to strike a balance. Apart from that they cannot be held responsible for the views held by their speakers.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) wondered if she was getting full value for her money. I understood that she wanted to lay at the door of the B.B.C. the fact that there were a lot of illegitimate children in the country. I do not know whether she was entitled to do that. Also she did not like crooners, but she did like the old-fashioned songs. Her plea was the very familiar plea that there are no songs like the old songs. Well, of course, there never were. That is the usual thing. I know people who would object very strongly to the cloying sentiment of "Love's Old Sweet Song," but then, the B.B.C., I am perfectly convinced, while it follows up taste, does not follow it slavishly, but has to provide programmes that command general approval over the whole country. I understood the hon. Lady to say that the Scottish Region had rejected the Brains Trust, and I gather from her criticism that she thought that that was not the right thing to do, and that the Scottish Region is getting too Scottish and nationalistic, and that a little more of the English programmes, apparently, is desired in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) referred to the question of television, and asked a question about the amount to be spent on television. I cannot tell him how much of this amount will be spent on television, but I understand that the amount of

money to be spent on television in a very short time will be a matter of £2 million. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that television will be reaching the rural areas for a long time to come. I was also asked about films. I understand that there was a film unit in connection with television before the war, and that it is to be revived. I was also asked how the £1,024,000 could be broken down. The hon. Member was anxious to know whether the English language was used to the full in our overseas broadcasts. I can assure him that out of the amount spent on various broadcasts, £1,750,000 a year is spent on English language services, and that out of the 106 programme hours given to overseas broadcasts per day, 53 hours are in the English language.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) told us that he was due to speak on the B.B.C. and that he wondered why he had received £10 10s. I can only suggest that he received it for not speaking, and to carry on the fun, if there is any danger of him speaking, he had better send it back. He also had his personal likes and dislikes, and he particularly disliked speakers from the other side. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd-George) raised the question about a Welsh Governor, but I understand that the Prime Minister has answered her on that point. It would not be right for me to say that the claims of Wales should be considered in terms of the number of licences, because Scotland and Northern Ireland might also put forward the same claims. She made a strong plea for controversy, and this was also taken up by other Members. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that it is essential we should have controversy at the time. One of the essentials of democracy is that the minority 'should be given a fair chance, and I think that the B.B.C. would do well to bear in mind his suggestion.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General really suggest that it would be wise to have a hot controversy, let us say tomorrow, on the subject of Palestine, which is to come before the House next week, or a hot controversy on a Bill the day before it received its Second Reading in the House? Surely that would prejudice fair discussion in this House.

Mr. Burke: When talking about time, I was referring to the two controversialists being present at the same time, instead of there being a lapse of time between the first speaker and the second. There is a good deal to be said for leaving controversy in connection with a Bill to this House, but when it becomes an Act, the amount of controversy which may then be allowed is for the B.B.C. to decide.
But I agree entirely with those who have said that the amount of controversy should be increased. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities said that there was a constant drip of a certain type of propaganda. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I agree that what the people of the country want is the whole truth. They do not want to have one aspect of it put to them over and over again. Putting only one aspect is to falsify the whole truth. I am with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in asking that the greatest freedom should be given to this type of programme.
9.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for West Fife was morally indignant about a certain item he heard which, he said, was not fit for his own home, but then he went on to say that there ought to be religious controversy. Just as he objected to that item going into his home, there are many who would object to religious controversy being carried into their homes. In matters where conscience is concerned I believe that the B.B.C. are wise in going carefully. In other matters, political, industrial, or economic, the controversial ban was withdrawn from the B.B.C. in 1928. They have perfect freedom to allow as much controversy as they think the public really want. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) wanted more. Corporations, so that there could be more variety. The fact is that this House has decided that the B.B.C. shall be the sole authority for broadcasting. That was decided by previous Governments. It was a Conservative Government which set up the B.B.C. in their present form—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now getting out of Order. He is now dealing with matters affecting the Charter.

Mr. Burke: Then I shall not be able to reply to those who wanted extra programmes. What determines, very largely, the number of programmes there can be at the present time is the availability of wavelengths. They are limited, and that limits very severely the number of programmes, and the amount of freedom, there can be. May I say, in conclusion, that the speeches we have had tonight have not been criticisms of the Government? There is nothing that I, personally, or my noble Friend the Postmaster-General, can do about them, but points were made which the B.B.C. may very well take into consideration, as I have no doubt they will. I hope we shall get this extra money so that the B.B.C., which did a marvellous job during the war, may go on now, in peacetime, and have the resources to maintain and develop their broadcast services both at home and abroad.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I had hoped that the Committee would be now ready to come to a decision.

Mr. Hollis: I would like to say a few words in reply to the Assistant Postmaster-General, because I think he singularly misunderstood the depth and the strength of the argument put forward by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). My right hon. and gallant Friend is here now, and, I hope, will interrupt me if I misinterpret his argument. But he appeared to make two main points. First, as regards programmes, it is to some extent a matter of opinion what is a good and what is a bad programme, but my right hon. and gallant Friend's point was a much deeper one than that.
When my children go into the drawing room they are apt in these days to turn on the wireless much as they turn on the electric light and then not to listen to it but to talk it down. A staggering amount of listening goes on which is technically known as background listening—that is to say, a mere noise, as my right hon. Friend said, which no one is paying any attention to at all. It must be admitted that it is an extremely bad thing educationally that people should be carrying on their conversation behind a background of noise. That is the first evil which we have to try to


clear away. What is the solution? Various suggestions have been made. One was the greater development of television, and, above all, the improvement of the quality of broadcasting. That is why I think the Postmaster-General has made a most disastrous decision, to which there has been no adequate defence, in closing down the Third Programme. The Assistant Postmaster-General told us that the Postmaster-General was not responsible for any of the things criticised tonight, but this particular decision was apparently taken definitely by the Postmaster-General.
As to the quality of broadcasts, hon. Members may have noticed that there was an interesting letter in "The Times" from Mr. Kenneth Norcott in which he stated that in 31½ hours' broadcasting today, 9 hours 20 minutes were given to dance music and three quarters of an hour to serious music. I do not think that anyone can be complacent in the face of such statistics. Secondly, as to the political Point, my right hon. Friend's point was not particularly to say that the Conservative speakers were getting a bad time as compared with the Labour speakers. other hon. Members spoke on that point but his argument went much deeper than that. We have to face the fact that broad, asting has been, from the political point of view, up to the present, one of the most gigantic evils that has ever come to the world. Since broadcasting came into existence, the most gigantic tyrannies, unknown before in the world, have flourished, and radio has been one of the instruments used to impose that tyranny. We have to face that fact. We have to see how we can get the benefits without suffering these gigantic evils.
My right hon. Friend's point—and a most important point—was that a great evil of the radio is that it imposes itself on people's minds as a sort of pseudochurch—this voice coming out of a box seems to people like the voice from Sinai. There used to be the mysterious authority of the printed word, and one of the great services done by journalists and newspaper proprietors has been to destroy this mysterious authority of print, so that people no longer believe automatically what they see printed. But they still believe to a fantastic extent what they hear coming out of a box. A friend of mine, an agricultural worker in the West of England, gave up going to church be-

cause he explained to the vicar that he heard some doctor on the wireless telling him that cannibalism was not unnatural, and that all those years, when he might have been eating his wife, the vicar had kept this from him. Therefore, he had stopped going to church. These are the problems that my right hon. Friend stated. What is the answer to them? The answer is that there should be as much controversy, as much live controversy, and as much authoritative controversy as possible in order to break down in people's minds this idea of a mysterious authority behind any opinion just because it happens to be expressed on the radio.
I do not so much worry about the proportion of Conservatives, Labour or Liberal speakers—their parties are well able to look after themselves up to a point. I am much more concerned that a fair do should be given to what might be called the "crank speakers." The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) spoke of a boycott of the Communist Party, but only a few weeks ago I had the great pleasure of taking part in a debate on the wireless with the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), so that obviously there is no such boycott. But I do think that a reasonable dose of Fifth Monarchy men and Flat Earth men should be allowed their run on the wireless, and if they sometimes talk nonsense so much the better because it is important that a lot of nonsense should be talked on the wireless—irregular nonsense, that is, recognised as such—so as to break down this mysterious authority of the radio. It appears to me that the Assistant Postmaster-General did not realise the strength and depth of the most important criticism put forward by my right hon. Friend, and that he was dealing with the whole problem on a level which was altogether more superficial than that upon which my right hon. Friend placed it.

Sir Ian Fraser: There is only one point which I wish to make. The power of a transmitter is, say, 100 kilowatts; 100 kilowatts equals zoo horsepower. That is what it sends out on the air, although the Diesel engine or electric power which it uses may be four or five times as much, but the point is that this power is infinitesimal by comparison with the extraordinary area over which the transmitter sends its wireless waves. Incidentally, most of the B.B.C. stations have Diesel


engines on the spot which are used for breakdown purposes and which could perfectly well be employed now for filling in the gaps without taking one kilowatt from the mains supply of the 'nation. The engines are there, and they have the oil on the spot so that they would be using stores already in hand. Of course, if the programmes were continued a little longer people would use the radios in their homes and that would use some power, but the moral effect of giving people a cheerful programme when they are working in their homes in the mornings—especially the. housewife who is the cold one doing her best without heat or light—would be doing an enormous amount of good and using extraordinarily little electricity.

Mr. Osborne: I should like to remind hon. Members that we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate and deciding on behalf of the taxpayers whether to grant £3,994,000 to the B.B.C. In doing so we should be quite satisfied that the money is being well spent. May I remind the Committee also that this is added to the £7,500,000 already agreed, making a total of practically £11,500,000? Hon. Members may not think that spending Dalton pounds, which are worth only about half the Kingsley Wood pound of before the war—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is getting out of Order.

Mr. Osborne: Whether the currency that we are spending is inflated to the degree I suggest or not, the point is that we, as responsible Members, should see that our constituents are receiving value for money.

Mr. Pritt: What, in the hon. Member?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: As regards that interruption, I do at least stand here as a full-blooded Englishman representing England and not a foreign Power. Most hon. Members have agreed that the Third Programme has been the saving grace of broadcasting, and that if we are getting value for money it is in that programme. I asked the Minister how much power was being saved by cutting out that programme and he gave me. as do most Socialists, an answer that meant nothing. He said, "43 per cent." Forty-three per cent. of what? He has told me exactly

nothing, and that is what the Socialist Government usually tell the country. I want to know. May I remind hon. Members that last week I had the privilege of calling the attention of the House and the country to the football pools industry?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may not.

Mr. Osborne: All I want to say is that the amount of electricity that is being saved by cutting out the Third Programme—and surely I am in Order there —is quite small as compared with other items which are being allowed. The Minister justified the Government's action —not the B.B.C. action, because it is the Government's responsibility—in cutting out this programme by saying that only two million people listened to it. Is it nothing that two million want to listen to a good programme? Are they to be debarred from doing so at the saving of quite a small amount of power when large amounts are wasted in much more frivolous ways? The responsibility rests quite squarely on the shoulders of the Government and not on the Governors of the B.B.C. I could make a long speech. [Interruption.] Having sat here all day except for meal time, I think I am entitled to make my points.
As I represent an agricultural constituency, I wish to emphasise the point made by one of my hon. Friends concerning what is to be done in the rural areas with regard to the television service. When this question was raised some time ago the Minister who is sitting there now admitted to the House that people living in the country were being made to subsidise London viewers who are to have the service first. Then, as I hope he will remember, he went on to say that he hoped Birmingham would have the service next and then, ultimately perhaps, industrial Lancashire and Scotland. What about the agricultural people in East Anglia? I am speaking for them. That is what they sent me here for. They are to get their pound of flesh when all the others are provided for. I want to make a special plea that when the television service is fully developed the agricultural workers' interests will not be overlooked. Finally, may I say that I was thorough disgusted when the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) made his quite unnecessary and unprovoked attack on organised religion?

Mr. Gallacher: I did nothing of the kind.

Mr. Osborne: With reference to his taunts at hon. Members on this side and at the British way of life in general, and in reply to his assertion about our not allowing his point of view to be put, may I ask him what hope we should have if we were in Moscow?

The Deputy-Chairman: Can the hon. Member indicate to me where Moscow is mentioned in the Vote we are now discussing?

Mr. Osborne: I was referring to what was said by one of the hon. Members for Moscow. Perhaps I may now finish my speech. At least we Conservatives do give our people value for money, which is what hon. Members opposite cannot say to the mugs who voted for them. When we discussed the Third Programme—

Mr. Follick: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to call the constituents of other hon. Members "mugs"?

Mr. Osborne: It depends upon the Division from which they come. When we discussed the Third Programme in this House some little time ago, it was claimed that the programme brought in an element of competition and therefore justified itself. If another Corporation could be allowed to be established to take over that Third Programme, I suggest that it might be of advantage.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In common with other hon. Members, I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at the inadequacy of the reply given by the Minister in regard to the closing down of the Third Programme. Of all the great Departments in our public life, the B.B.C. has done most since the end of the war to develop and improve its service. In the Third Programme and in the improvements which have been made in the Home and Light Programmes, there has been a development which, put against the development in railways, the coal industry, housing and any other branch of public life, lifts the B.B.C. out and away top of the lot. What has taken place? We have had a fierce and sudden fuel cut, and the B.B.C. programme has

been smashed to pieces. Millions of people who have grown accustomed to and who were enjoying the Third Programme have had to do without it altogether. They have had to do without other programmes also, for considerable periods of the day. I think hon. Members can imagine what heart-searching trouble and anxiety must have been caused to B.B.C. officials to have to face those serious cuts, in view of the remarkable development which had taken place.
I should therefore have thought that any self-respecting Minister, knowing that the Debate was to take place and that millions of listeners would read the reports of it on the morrow, hoping for some relief in the present circumstances, would have seized himself of the situation and would have come to this House prepared to make a full statement of how soon the cuts could be restored. If the Assistant Postmaster-General cannot do it, could not his noble Friend the Postmaster-General have been allowed this morning to see representatives of the Government's crisis fuel committee in order to get an answer to give to the House on this question on whether we are to have a full statement of how the cuts could be restored?
The Minister informed us that the B.B.C. comes in on the domestic side, so it may be that for weeks or even months we shall have to suffer cuts on the domestic side. Is it really to be supposed that, having started this great venture and enterprise, the Government will allow the B.B.C. to continue with a programme which is back to the Savoy Hill standard? I listened to it in the early hours of this morning and I was taken right back to the early days of 2LO, so fierce and drastic had been the changes imposed on B.B.C. programmes by the Government. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman should have come to the House and given the people of this country a more adequate reply than he has given today.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £43,994,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1947, for a grant to and grants in aid of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

CLASS X

HOME OFFICE (WAR SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £610,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the cost of the war services of the Home Office.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May we not have an explanation of this Vote?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I would have preferred to answer any questions which might have been raised on this Vote; but I can say that, in the main, though not wholly, the money which is asked for is due to arrangements made by reason of the concern expressed by the Committee on Public Accounts about the delay in the payment of wartime expenditure to local authorities. As a result of that, the Department, in consultation with the Treasury, made arrangements for putting in operation certain measures to expedite the payment of expenditure when the local authorities had made their submissions. As a result, requests were made, first by the Civil Defence circular in March last year, and then again by letter in July, to local authorities asking them to expedite their claims to the Home Office for the expenditure which they incurred mainly as a result of Civil Defence. There has been, accordingly, an influx of claims much in excess of that contemplated by the Department when the Estimate was made.

Mr. Osbert Peake: We are obliged to the Under-Secretary of State for his statement on these Supplementary Estimates for the War Services of the Home Office—what used to be called the Ministry of Home Security—but I have one or two comments to make upon it. There are some nine items in respect of which increases on the original Estimates are demanded. The original Estimates for these items were for a total of some £20 million. The additional sums required amount to nearly £7,500,000, that is to say, something like a 35 or 40 per cent. increase on the original Estimate. A great deal of these increased requirements are offset by anticipated savings on other items which are set out in the Supplementary Estimate. The savings appear to be about £6,500,000 on a number of

original Estimates which totalled £13 million. It therefore appears that out of some 18 items which made up the original Estimate there is on the one side—on nine items—an excess of £7,500,000 now demanded, an excess averaging 35 or 40 per cent., whereas on the other nine items of the original Estimates there are savings amounting to some 48 per cent. of the original figure. It seems to show what a complete farce it is to endeavour to produce Estimates for the War Services of the Home Office at this time.
9.45 P.m.
The variations are stupendous in almost every case. Some of the items for which the original Estimate was submitted to the House on 18th February are mistaken by 100 per cent. or more, and it is the same with the anticipated savings. The Treasury had the duty of going through the original Estimates. They look at them carefully and they are supposed to pare them down where unnecessary expenditure is provided for, but it appears on these figures that the Estimates were almost wholly worthless, for in every instance they have been belied by the events which have occurred. Next year, I presume, there will be very small services required of this character, but it is most unfortunate that these figures should be so far from accuracy. In these circumstances I really do not think it is worth inquiring as to the details. Much of the expenditure, I suppose, is due to the difficulty of transition from war to peace; events have occurred more rapidly in some cases and more slowly in other cases than the Home Secretary anticipated. There is, of course, a tremendous lag between the actual spending of money and the passing of the accounts. As far as I remember, the accounts for these war services are two or three years behind, and the Estimates are rendered nugatory by the speed or lack of speed at which accountancy progresses. In this case we are bound to accept the Supplementary Estimate, but to observe in passing that the original Estimates were hardly worth the paper on which they were written.

Mr. Guy: I want to ask a question with regard to Subhead P, which is headed "Miscellaneous Recoverable Expenditure by Local Authorities."

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr, Joynson-Hicks: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Would the


hon. Gentleman let us into the secret he is telling the Minister?

Mr. Guy: The question I want to ask is whether the additional sum of £725,000 required arises from local authority being allowed to recover sums expended on maintaining communal graves of air-raid victims?

Mr. Oliver: A point has just been raised with regard to Subhead P. It relates to expenditure by local authorities on the cleansing of shelters and is recovered through the medium of a claims grant. It relates also to the storage of property which has been salvaged. Those are items on which the local authorities have expended money and, as a result, it is necessary to reimburse them to the extent of £725,000. The Home Office have been rather defeated by their own efforts in asking the local authorities to expedite their claims. It has been necessary, by reason of these claims coming in at such a rapid rate, to call for this Supplementary Estimate.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £610,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the cost of the war services of the Home Office.

CLASS III

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, ETC., NORTHERN IRELAND

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1947, for such of the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland, and of the Land Registry of Northern Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, and other expenses, including certain expenses in connection with land purchase in Northern Ireland and a grant in aid: and the salaries and expenses of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals in Northern Ireland.

CLASS IV

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Motion made. and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,610,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947 for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected there-

with, including sundry grants in aid, grants connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I do not want to raise any matter on this Vote if the Parliamentary Secretary is to give us a preliminary explanation. Is that so?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): This is the second Supplementary Estimate of this Ministry in 1946–7. Hon. Members will remember that the first was in July, 1946, for the sum of £195,000. The present Supplementary Estimate is £8,610,000 net. That is a large sum. I want to remind the Committee that the total for the whole year, if this Vote is agreed to tonight, will be £113,785,112. The extra supply is required for the following purposes—Subhead C is for increased provision for grants for local education authorities, and the sum is over £4 million. Naturally, the question arises at once, why should this extra sum be required? The reason is that local education authorities have been able to do more than was initially expected. That is a serious statement, as I am going to show. First, there is the increased teacher staff as a result of the expanding output of teachers and the reduction the Department have been able to make in regard to emergency training courses. In 1946, happily, there was a considerable expansion in the production of trained teachers. Secondly, local authorities have developed their own provision for the training of teachers. The emergency training scheme has gone better than was expected 12 months ago. Local education authorities all over the country have co-operated with the Ministry, and have co-operated in the provision of buildings. Thirdly, they have co-operated in catching up on arrears in school maintenance. The view we took 12 months ago would be considered a gloomy view.
I believe that view has been falsified, and in the primary and secondary fields, in buildings and in the provision of teachers, the local education authorities have required more financial provision. Most important of all, the local authorities have gone ahead in developing the school health and school meals services. I think those two heads are extremely important, and where enthusiasm has shown itself in the local areas, it is surely to be welcomed on all sides of the Committee.

Mr. K. Lindsay: When the Parliamentary Secretary refers to school meals, could he say what percentage is paid by the local authorities? I thought it was a national charge.

Mr. Hardman: I cannot give the exact figures. It is a national charge, but I think there is a percentage grant. The school health service does show, in the provision which the local authorities have made, that they are prepared to cooperate and work with the Ministry, and we welcome that. I think it is obvious that during the last 12 months there has been a steep rise in costs of goods and services. The wages that are paid to canteen workers and to caretakers have all gone up. I suggest that all these heads, concurrently with preparation for raising the school-leaving age to 15 as from 1st April next, called for an increased expenditure for which we could not closely budget round about Christmas, 1945. Then, local education authorities, under present unstable conditions, have found it extremely difficult to estimate. We get very general and provisional forecasts in November of each year from local authorities, and we have to base our figures upon them. In prevailing conditions, such forecasts by local education authorities are bound to be of a very general nature. Therefore, I feel that, basing our figures upon these very provisional figures which were given by the local authorities, it is understandable, for these reasons, that there should be a request for this Supplementary Estimate under this head.
If I may turn to Subhead E, which asks for £4 million because of increased provision for payment of awards under the Further Education and Training Scheme, I would like to remind hon. Members that the original estimate was based on a very considerable underestimate of the number of applications from ex-Service personnel for teachers' training. The number of ex-Servicemen and of those in the Forces who, when they come out of the Forces, wish to go into teaching is something, to my mind, extremely gratifying. There has been an unprecedented number of applications from members of the Forces to take up the profession of teaching. The number has turned out to be much larger than we anticipated. The universities, colleges and technical institutions have provided a

great deal more accommodation than we thought was possible. This has proved to be a fine piece of co-operation with the Ministry, and the governing bodies are to be congratulated upon finding so much accommodation. In view of the Debate on this subject initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) in December last, hon. Members may be glad to hear something about the position in regard to payments to students this term.
10.0 p.m.
Frankly, I do not think that the figures for current awards are discouraging. The number of students included on the lists sent to colleges and institutions for the Lent Term, 1947, was 18,573. The number of payments actually made to date is 15,505. To put it another way, there are 497 institutions at which students are in attendance, and all but a handful of these have returned their lists for this term. In 456 institutions, payments have already been made, and the remainder will be completed very shortly. I am confident that all current awards for which we have received the lists from institutions will be paid off by the end of next week, and, considering that it is not more than five or six weeks from the average date of the beginning of the term, I do not regard it as a bad achievement. I admit that it is not ideal, because there are these hundreds of cases that remain unpaid, but it is certainly very much better than the Michaelmas Term of last year. At that time, some 12,000 awards were due for payment, but it took some 10 weeks to clear off all payments, mainly owing to the delay in getting back certificates of attendance from the colleges. The position is certainly better than it was then.
Might I pass for a moment to the new awards? Hon. Members will appreciate that, all the time, new applications are being received. The rate at present is about 400 new applications per week. Since the compilation of the lists for the Lent Term, 7,000 new awards have been made. These could not be included in the omnibus list, and every one has to be dealt with individually. They are being dealt with as speedily as possible and we hope to introduce one more change this term, which I believe is one to help the students, by easing their position while waiting for the full grant to come through.


As soon as it has been decided that an award shall be made and the case is passed on for assessment, a payment on account is made to the student of £25 for a bachelor and £40 for a married man. We are proposing to increase these amounts to the very limit consistent with safety, and, as soon as the payment on account has been made, assessment goes on and a final payment is made, generally within a period of three weeks. In addition, over 2,000 payments have been made on account. I want to tell the Committee here that, in making these payments, members of the Ministry's staff have been working every week-end since Christmas, and that there are officers of the staff who have not had a single free Sunday this year, who have been working in the Department to speed up the payment of these grants.
Before saying a word about the future, I want to make two remarks. In the first place, I believe that the heads of colleges and institutions are always ready to receive representations from individual students and to take them up with my Department. Indeed, some principals have already told us that they have instructed all students to go to them if there is any difficulty. Complaints addressed to us are dealt with as speedily as possible, and I am somewhat surprised that students should not have availed themselves of this obvious remedy but should have troubled hon. Members of this Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No trouble."] Surely, where machinery is set up for co-operation, that co-operation might be tried first, and, if the machinery breaks down, obviously, the remedy is to go to hon. Members of this Committee. The other point is that the officers of my Department concerned with assessing and paying grants are, and have been for some time, working at very great pressure. I want to emphasise again the fact that many of them have been working on this job for even days a week. As regards the future, we have a number of suggestions under consideration for improving the procedure in the May term, that is to say the term after Easter.

The Chairman: The question of the May term does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate, which only carries us up to the 31st March.

Mr. Hardman: I am sorry. I wanted to give as rosy and optimistic a picture for the future as possible. I think I can

say that the overhauling of the machinery, which I promised in December, is going on and will certainly be felt at some date.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. On page 27 there are two items concerning further provisions for students at training colleges for the Further Education and Training Scheme. Surely, the Minister is entitled to talk on those provisions?

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will be so good as to leave these matters to the Chair, we shall make better progress. Further provision means provision up to 31st March, 1947, further or additional to the main Estimates.

Mr. Bowles: With great respect, Major Milner, I heard you say, "The less the Minister says the better." That was heard by hon. Members here. The Committee is interested in the statement which the Minister is making, and I suggest that perhaps the less heard from the Chair the better in that respect.

Mr. Peake: Is it not very unusual for sotto voce remarks from the Chair to be repeated in public by a Member of this House?

Mr. Bowles: With great respect, it was not sotto voce at all.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is quite right. The hon. Member is certainly departing from the normal rules of conduct in this House. Mr. Hardman,

Mr. Bowles: May I with great respect, Major Milner, apologise to you? The remark was not sotto voce and—with great respect, and with great humility—I thought it was intended to be overheard by the Minister himself.

The Chairman: Mr. Hardman.

Mr. Hardman: May I return to the items in the Supplementary Estimate and comment now upon Subhead P? Hon. Members will have noticed that this refers to the provision of £100,000 towards U.N.E.S.C.O. That organisation has been established and naturally extra provision is required. This £100,000 covers the United Kingdom's share of contributions to the revolving fund. This revolving fund has been set up to finance U.N.E.S.C.O., pending the receipt of the


contributions from other States based on the U.N.E.S.C.O. budget for 1947. The sum advanced does not carry interest and it remains to the credit of His Majesty's Government.
There is only one other item I wish to mention in detail. It is that concerning the war workers' clubs taken over by local education authorities from the Ministry of Works, and referred to under Subhead R. There are over 100 of these clubs, but only about 30 are in premises owned by the Ministry of Works. This item of £13,000 covers the taking over by local education authorities of about six of these 30 centres during the year 1946–47, and also the taking over with them of a certain amount of equipment. Other clubs will be taken over in due course, the procedure being that we pay the Ministry of Works and that Ministry hands the centres over to the local education authorities if they wish to have them. They are to use these centres as community centres. I hope that, with this brief introduction, the Committee will be prepared to give my Department this Supplementary Estimate of £8,610,000.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I am not quite sure how far it is possible to deal with the £4 million which local authorities require. I am certainly not satisfied with the explanation which has been given. The whole Committee will be pleased at the increased establishment of emergency training colleges. I believe that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has taken this matter as his own responsibility and we appreciate the work that has been put in, and that there are now over 30 of these training colleges. That is a considerable increase. Obviously this £4 million is well spent, and no one here will cavil at it, but I cannot quite understand where it is spent. As far as the establishment of canteens is concerned—I admit that certain local costs enter into the matter—that is a national central charge.
Then the Parliamentary Secretary referred to catching up in arrears of building. I wish to bring to the Minister's attention the deep sense of frustration which is being felt among local education authorities at the present time, owing to the difficulties about building. A new code of building standards has been set up. For two years, local authorities have

been working hard on these new development plans. My right hon. Friend will know that scarcely any development plans can really start until possibly 1949. Meanwhile, these standards, which have been set up by the Ministry, are making ordinary changes in building almost impossible to carry out. Let me give one example. A building for a secondary school which, in 1939, before the war, cost £75,000, requires to have another £80,000 spent upon it to bring it up to the standards of today. Therefore, local authorities are simply worried to death, because they know that they cannot possibly put into practice these new standards.
Partly because I am one of those who is pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education change over from the Ministry of Works to the Ministry of Education, and also because he has had a peculiar experience in local education authority government, I wish to ask him to stop this nonsense of Belgrave Square taking three months to settle the position of a lavatory, which a local education authority wishes to provide, because of the hopelessly over-centralised nature of the direction in Belgrave Square. Among local authorities and directors of education there is, as I say, a deep sense of frustration at the present moment. They say they are becoming clerks. My right hon. Friend having himself been the chairman of the Association of Local Education Committees, knows how much that goes against the grain. The whole sense of local responsibility is being taken away through Regulations passed by this House, or agreed to by this House in relation to primary and secondary education, which make it impossible for the ordinary headmaster to carry on his school, without going to the local authority or to His Majesty's Inspectors.
His Majesty's Inspectors do not inspect schools any longer. They are no longer the guardians of qualities and standards hut interpreters of regulations. I remember the day when His Majesty's Inspector was regarded as a friend. Directors of education have said to me "Could you not say a word about so and so, because he has done a good job of work in this district?" We do not find that now. They are almost snooping on education officers. The whole relationship


has changed. I hope that my right hon. Friend, with his recent experience, is going to put a stop to all that.
I now want to say a word on further education and training grants. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a promise, after a Debate in which he was good enough to admit that the facts were completely accurate, and said, "I am going to take personal responsibility for this; I am going to get my officials round me and make some changes." He says that the changes will be made before May, and that there will be certain other changes. I am grateful that he has accepted what I should have thought was a commonsense piece of administration, that is, to pay a grant directly on account, and I hope that he will raise the £25, or £30 to £50 or £60. He did say that he would try to do that later on. If it is possible to give the students as much as possible at the beginning of the term, obviously, it is going to' be much easier to pay thousands of grants.

Mr. Hardman: I should like to clear up that point straight away. The matter is being considered, and I hope that, before long, we shall hear of these increased payments on account.

Mr. Lindsay: I am very glad to hear that. May I remind my hon. Friend that 70 per cent. of the students in the country had not been paid their recurrent grants after three weeks of the term had elapsed? Why should a student have to wait six weeks for a recurrent grant to be paid? I do not want to criticise, but I feel very strongly that a change has to be made.
Twice during the last 18 months the machinery of the Ministry of Education has broken down—first over emergency training colleges and then over students' grants. The matter was then passed to the local educational authorities, who are used to getting buildings and heads, and so forth. The speed with which the colleges have gone up has increased enormously because of that, although, I admit, these is still proper centralised direction. I suggest that this feature of paying grants from the centre is going to become part of the normal method in the future. In future, grants will be paid for university education by the central Ministry for many years to come; the transition period is going to continue. Therefore, if my hon.

Friend can divest as much responsibility as possible from the Ministry on to the universities—and I am speaking with the full authority of some universities—it will be much easier to get these grants paid at the proper time.
One other point on grants. Will my hon. Friend have a look at the question of the pre-natal allowances? There are ex-Service students who are married and who, at the moment, have to wait until the child is actually born before receiving the allowance. Even then, it takes a long time before the allowance comes through. Will my hon. Friend also look at the matter of a differentiation in allowances to scientific, medical and art students, because students simply cannot afford to pay £25 or ££30 for books and equipment out of the present allowance. Those are two small points, but they are worthy of consideration.
I am sorry to have to refer to the £100,000 for U.N.E.S.C.O., but it is my last point. I went over to have a look at this Conference. Had it not been for the intervention of this House, my hon. Friend would not have been there at all. I am very glad that this has been brought out, but why in the world have not the Ministry of Education yet set up a national commission? It is part of this whole organisation. If it is going to mean anything, it must include the teachers, the universities and the cultural leaders of this country. Of the 30 people who attended that conference, five were connected with films, but not one was connected with young children. This is part of the expenditure of the £100,000. I happen to be one of those very much in favour of the growth of cultural relations between ourselves, Europe and other countries of the world.
Therefore, I support this item of £100,000. My hon. Friend made a strong plea at the Conference for a bigger figure, but I think the delegates from New Zealand and South Africa were wise, because they want to see this new body star. slowly and properly and then build itself up. I ask my hon. Friend, when are we going to have a national commission in this country? There is one in America and one in France. U.N.E.S.C.O. is not just something "in the air." The I.L.O. is related back to employers and workers. That is why it has been a success in the past and, in fact, has ultimately been a


league of nations. At the present moment. U.N.E.S.C.O. has not got its roots in this country. No national commission has been set up. In fact, it is difficult to find anybody who knows what it is about I tried an experiment of writing an article in a daily paper, and a lot of people came to me who thought it was a boot polish or an ex-Rumanian minister or something like that.
I say to my hon. Friend, who was so eloquent at the Conference in Paris, that unless he can create in this country some interest in U.N.E.S.C.O. or in any other international organisation, it will not last or have any future. Therefore, I ask him to set up, through Belgrave Square and through the scientific bodies, universities and so forth, a permanent national commission so that the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. will be related to the organisations in this country. Next year when a conference is held, perhaps hon. Members in this House will take a little more interest in what it is doing and, possibly, if my hon. Friend asks for a larger sum of money it will be accepted. At the moment, with the lack of Debates and lack of publicity, I would not be at all surprised if on this occasion hon. Members challenged this sum of £100,000 and said, "What in the world does it mean, and what will it do for the future either of this country or civilisation in general?" It is because I feel that so strongly that I ask my hon. Friend to set up in the next few months a proper national commission. If he can answer some of these questions. I will be very much obliged.

Mr. A Edward Davies: There are two items to which I wish to refer. They are "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation," and "Premises, &c. transferred to local education authorities for use as community centres.'' I would like to endorse the case made out by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay) in relation to U N.E.S.C.O What is this money intended to do? The ordinary man in the street quite likely, as my hon. Friend has said, knows very little about this institution. I believe it to be one of the great hopes of the future, so far as our international relations are concerned, and I certainly would vote for granting this sum of money, as I am sure

every other hon. Member will do But we want a little more definition and precision as to the purpose for which it is intended to be used. Is it for the interchange of students? Is it for some policy of re-education of Germany, or the provision of text books? All these things should be considered and this could be well done by a national commission.
So far as Vote R is concerned, "Premises &c., transferred to local education authorities for use as community centres, £13,000," it is encouraging to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that some of the premises used as war workers' clubs are going to be used as community centres. I know we shall have the interest of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter, but will my hon. Friend tell us a little more about it? I would like him to say something about the old Army huts, for example. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that 30 community centres are available. I want to press him for the preparation and availability of the remainder, because throughout the country there is an urgent need for community centres.
In fact, some people take the view that community centres should be regarded as being as urgent as housing, and should certainly march alongside. I suggest that if this money is devoted to the provision of community centres, in the shape of acquired Army huts, it will serve a very useful purpose. We have urged the local education authorities to set up community associations, and to welcome the idea. But they now find themselves in the position of having no premises, and no prospect of premises. I think we might take over a lot of the surplus buildings. I do not know if this has been done as far as the Army is concerned. They are described in the Vote as "war workers' clubs." I am sure that as far as the Services are concerned there must be many buildings of a temporary nature which would do as makeshifts for this purpose, until we can get something better. Perhaps the Minister would give more attention to those two points.

Mr. Linstead: From this side of the Committee, I think it would be appropriate to offer a few words of congratulation to the new Minister of Education on his appointment, and at the same


time pay a tribute to the late Minister. If there was anybody who, through a sense of deep duty, burned herself out with her task, I think it was the right hon. Lady.
We on this side of the House were glad to hear such a rosy and optimistic report —if I might use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary—on the development of the Education Act, 1944. We forgive him for having jumped into the month of May; because we can imagine that most of those who sit on the benches opposite are only too anxious to jump as quickly as they possibly can into the month of May, when the temperature may be a little warmer. Among the items for which the Parliamentary Secretary was asking for money from the Committee was the training of teachers. I should like to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he satisfied that there is sufficient central control over these training centres for the new teachers? Is he satisfied that there is not competition between the local authorities for the available teachers? May it not be that some closer control by his own Department over the people and their destination is not called for, if there is not to be an uneven distribution of available teaching manpower at a later stage?
On the Vote for buildings one or two questions arise. It does seem as though local authorities, encouraged by the Department, are spending a greater part of their available resources on primary and secondary school buildings. It would be interesting to know whether no encouragement is being given to other aspects of education which are provided for in the 1944 Act. For example, what provision, if any, has been made for county colleges? Or have they been put into the background? It may be a quite proper thing that they should be, but I think we ought to be told. Is any provision, by way of buildings, being made for adult education, or is that being put into the background in order to make room for secondary education? Then again, has his attention been directed to the expenditure which the London County Council have incurred, and are proposing to incur, for the putting up of these vast multilateral schools for 2,000 pupils in one place, for which they are already buying land instead of retaining the small and normal sized schools which have entities of their own, which

students or pupils can get to know, and which can be associated with the lives of the communities in 'which they work? Is he doing anything to check the tendency which has been started already, by at least one great education authority, to develop that type of secondary education which is quite foreign to the educational history of this country, and which should be experimented with at least before it becomes a general practice, as it threatens to become in London?
10.30 p.m.
Then I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied that local authorities are spending this money adequately upon bringing up to date existing schools. There seems to be a tendency in some areas to go in for closing all the small country schools as soon as possible. No doubt there are some which very properly, should be closed, particularly the one-teacher schools, but, on the other hand—

The Chairman: I gather that that item to which the hon. Member is now referring is not in the Estimate.

Mr. Linstead: There is an item of about £4,000,000 for expenditure by local authorities, and it would not be unfair to assume that, at any rate, some of the money may be used or would be used for the repair of existing schools where the local authority does not desire—

The Chairman: To which item is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. Linstead: Item C, on page 27.

The Chairman: Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether there is anything in the Estimate with respect to this matter.

Mr. Hardman: Yes, Major Milner, there certainly is. In that Estimate of £4,116,000 there is money which is being expended on buildings, and I should like to answer my hon. Friend straight away. Considerable expenditure is being made on the improvement of existing buildings, some of which I saw only yesterday in Portsmouth.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is then clearly in Order.

Mr. Linstead: I must say that until the hon. Gentleman gave his explanation I was as muon at sea as any other hon. Member of the Committee. I would


underline the point that I have made. I believe there is a tendency among local authorities at the moment not to spend money on certain types of small schools. They tend to favour the development of large centralised schools. To take some of the smaller schools out of the cornmunity in small country towns and villages, where they are the centre of intellectual life, may be a most serious matter. I hope, therefore, this desire for things "bigger and better" will not be allowed by the Minister to go too far.
I thought the hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, a little complacent in what he said about the Further Education and Training Scheme. He has now given us a firm date—the end of next week—but I think that some of his civil servants will have to work next Sunday, if he is going to get these cheques sent out. I had given to me this morning the names of 40 students at one training college who have not yet received their cheques. If that is a sample of conditions in other parts of the country then there is still a great deal of work to be done in the next few days. My last question relates to the sum of £13,000 for premises transferred for use as community centres. I do not know whether the Minister could tell us whether any part of that sum will be allocated to the provision of bars or the intoxicating liquor which we understand is to be provided in future in such Government-owned institutions. Those are the only questions I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman. To the Minister himself I am sure that we on this side of the House wish good fortune, in the administration of this great Measure.

Mr. Corlett: It would be ungracious not to acknowledge the addifonal financial assistance given by th Ministry to the local education authorities I think that all the local education authorities were very pleased indeed when the Minister took off their shoulders the whole cost of school meals. But I think most of the authorities would argue that that was rather an allowance in kind, under the Family Allowances Act than a strictly educational grant. While we welcome these piecemeal grants I think it must be recognised that this additional assistance is cnly of a temporary nature, and it must not be allowed to hide the very urgent need for a full review of the

whole problem, so that a new, formula may be introduced by 1st April, 1948, and authorities be enabled to carry out their statutory duties.
We are now receiving the various development plans, so we are getting some idea of the shape of things to come. It is quite clear that this new Act will cost annually about £300 million, and of that it is reasonable to say that the education authorities cannot be asked to pay more than £100 million. That is the maximum to which they ought to be asked to go, but that is only one-third of the total, or 33⅓ per cent. Today the education authorities are paying 40 per cent., and I do not think it is reasonable to ask them to bear this burden any more. The education rate in the counties is, on the average, 6s., which is greater than the total cost of the other services. The average education rate in the county boroughs is 4s.; in my own city the education rate has risen by 1s. 4d. since 1939, and has risen in the neighbouring Ridings by 1s. 3d. or is. 4d. at the same time, and there is nothing to show for the increase, that is the essential thing. This cannot be continued very much longer, and something will have to be done.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot advocate an increase, nor speak about the shape of things to come.

Mr. Corlett: May I put it this way? The Minister will be prepared to agree that these great differences in local rates are due to the fact that the existing formula is completely discredited. For 20 years that formula has been severely and intelligently criticised, but little has been done to alter it. When the war came along we knew the costs would rise and the disparities increase, but nothing was done to alter the grant formula. When the new Act was introduced, and it was obvious that there would be increased costs when it became operative and when the new Burnham scales became effective, nothing whatever was done to alter the grant formula, except to add five per cent. in respect of each authority. Obviously that cannot continue, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to tell us that he is going to introduce a new grant formula at the earliest possible date. I was always puzzled by the fact that when the new Act was introduced no new grant formula was proposed. There was plenty of time to introduce a new formula; there


was plenty of material available. Plenty of time was spent on the Fleming Committee on this question-begging remit, but there was no time to discuss a matter that was really vital to the education authorities. Mr. Fisher was more fortunate; when he introduced his Act he had a formula ready to hand and he used it, in an altered way, and thought he had secured a formula which would settle this problem for all time. We know he was fundamentally wrong. Whereas education rates varied before the formula from 6d. tO 2S.—

Mr. Peake: On a point of Order. Is there anything in the Supplementary Estimate which relates to formulas, whether of Mr. Fisher or anyone else?

The Chairman: The whole grant is based on formulas. Whether a change of formula would imply legislation I do not know.

Mr. Peake: It would.

The Chairman: If it would, the hon. Member is out of Order.

Mr. Corlett: I was trying to base my argument entirely on the fact that the whole formula is discredited, and that, consequently, we have these piecemeal methods constantly being applied. I feel that that is the whole essence of the case. I want to press on the Minister, when he does bring forward the new grant, to get right away from this detailed Fisher formula, and go back to a simple Kemp formula. The Fisher formula failed for two reasons. One was that the rate-equalising device has never been allowed to operate; and the second is the constant interference by the Ministry with the local authorities in regard to their expenditure.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) raised that very point, about whether the Minister was encouraging the authorities to spend in certain directions. I believe that the formula has failed for the reason that the Minister has always been interfering with the grant formula in order to encourage the local authorities to spend in the way the Minister has wanted. I regard it as an impertinence and an insult to base the grant formula in the way it is based today. The local authorities today are experienced; they know their job, they know the needs and possibilities of their areas;

and they do not need to be bribed in order to spend in certain directions. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give me a promise that he is going to introduce a new grant formula, and end, once for all, this make and mend method of trying to do with a completely discredited formula.

Commander Maitland: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett), because he has with great ingenuity raised several points which I might not have been able to do under the Rules of Order. I should like to say I sympathise very much with the main tenor of his remarks. I think, perhaps, the reason why we find it so difficult to keep in Order on these occasions, is that we have had in the recent past so few Debates on education; and it would be a very good thing if we had some more, so that we could let ourselves go a bit. I should like to refer to Grant C, and, particularly, its relation to the rural areas. It seems to me that in order to get the best value for our money under Grant C, two things are requisite: first, that we should have really keen and enthusiastic local education authorities; and, also, that they should have a keen body of support outside. For example, at the moment we have in every county council housing committees, and they are being driven on by the pressure of the ratepayers outside. But I sometimes feel—in fact, I am quite certain—that in rural areas local education authorities, far from being driven on, are being dragged back by the feelings of the ratepayers, for reasons given by the hon. Member for York. I do think that this acts against the efficient administration of the Act.
I make this simple suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, how we might, perhaps, assist in the matter; and this particularly applies to the countryside. In the country we have very good provincial newspapers. They are not—anyway, in the district I represent—taken sufficiently into the confidence of the local education authority. I should like to see the Ministry encouraging the local authority to have quarterly conferences with the editors of the local papers, in order that the whole principle, the problems and difficulties of education may be written up in the local papers, in the areas in which they are read, and which they serve. I believe that that would have a great effect on the


people outside the local authorities, and would encourage them to support their local education authorities, and assist greatly the members of those authorities in their work.
10.45 p.m.
I think it is essential if we are to get the best out of this Act that we should have the very best type of headmaster in our rural schools, and especially in those rural schools which are separated some distance one from the other. I feel that sometimes headmasters are not given enough encouragement to carry out their own ideas. I have raised in this House the question of the various expeditions and so on which headmasters have tried to get up for children, but in spite of their efforts, it is surprising the amount of red tape which has to be faced before quite simple things are granted. If headmasters are going to he allowed to think for themselves, there may be one or two very bad "flops" but on the whole, I think we will reap a hundredfold by getting a better type of man by making the job far more attractive. It will benefit the whole system if we let them have more freedom.
There is one further point, which may be only a matter of detail. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of making money available for the extension of the school leaving age. In the Lindsey county district we have not seen much evidence of anything happening. That is not the fault of the local education authority. It may have something to do with the right hon. Gentleman in his previous office, but I think that at the moment we have not got one single extension hut started in the whole of the Lindsey county council district or any huts being got ready for the extension of the school age and unless we get going soon there is going to be a frightful mess when the scheme is due to start in the Autumn. I leave that point in the capable hands of the new right hon. Gentleman particularly when he is thinking over his past life for the last 18 months when he had so much to do with the erection of huts.
Whenever I try to speak in this House about rural matters I always feel there are two great principles struggling one against the other, and they are, first, the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people and, secondly, the principle of equal opportunity for all.

Some people seem to think that the two principles are synonymous. One has to live in the country to find out that they are not one and the same thing. That is particularly so in the realm of education. I welcome these Estimates but only so long as I am assured that the countryside is going to get a square deal, and that we are not going to be treated in the way which was recently indicated by the late Minister of Education, when she said she was sorry but the Countryside would have to wait. We do not want to wait any longer.

Mr. Janner: I will not detain the Committee long, but I have a rather important point although it does not affect very many people in the teaching profession. There has been brought to my notice in my constituency a rather serious case. Art anomaly appears to exist and it is one which I have no doubt the Minister would like to put right. It appears that the increased rate of salary payable to a teacher who has been teaching for a considerable period of years, exceeding twenty years, differs from the increased rate of salary payable to a man or woman who undergoes one year of probationary training, and then becomes a qualified teacher. While I agree that it is essential that we should train as many teachers as possible, and I think the Minister is doing valuable service in that direction, the question of the qualifications—

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member be good enough to indicate where there is any question of the training of teachers in this Estimate?

Mr. Janner: I am talking, with respect, on the salaries of teachers, and I am referring to the first item, on page 26, of £4,116,000, which includes in part the payment of teachers. In that regard, I respectfully suggest that the payments which should be made to a teacher of long standing by way of salary should be different from the scale of payments made at present. I ask the Minister to see to it, if he possibly can, that the period of 20 years shall be reduced, to enable a man to come within the category, of "qualified teacher" for the purpose of such payments, and that when a teacher who has that experience reaches the qualifying period instead of getting an increment only every three years, he shall get an increment annually, in the same


way as a person who is trained under the present scheme. It seems to me that the persons I have in mind have a really serious grievance. There is for example a man in Leicester who has been teaching for 30½ years in a secondary school; he gets excellent results, and under the new scale he is only regarded as having become "qualified" by virtue of the fact that he has served for 20 years. He has trained large numbers of excellent scholars, and, after that period of teaching, he is only allowed an increment for every three years of his duties after the 20 years.
With regard to the teacher who is coming into the profession at present, not only does fre get, as I understand it, an increment for every year, but other ancillary service rendered by him which is regarded as having been of use to him as a teacher, is accounted to his benefit in that direction; and he is granted a year's increment in respact of the period of any other work which he may have done, and which may be considered to be of use to him in his teaching. A teacher who has been teaching for 20 years, however, is only considered to be entitled to an increment once every three years. In my view, that is an anomalous position which ought to be remedied, and though it may only apply to a small section of the teaching community, I hope my hon. Friend will give the matter his consideration and remedy it.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: I do not share the satisfaction which the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to derive from this Supplementary Estimate, especially in regard to that under C—the big grant of £4,000,000. I agree with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay) that local authorities all over the country have, to a very large extent, a feeling of frustration because they do not appear to be receiving from the Ministry that sympathy and help which they really need today. They are faced with an extremely difficult task in preparing buildings which are needed in connection with the raising of the school-leaving age. I am speaking as a member of a local authority, and we have not received the help which we expected from the Minister. I am very glad to see the new Minister of Education present. Many of us were not satisfied with the Ministry from which he has just come.

Now, when we appeal to the Minister for assistance in connection with the buildings which come within this Estimate, he will be able to give us not only his sympathy as Minister of Education, but he will also be able to appreciate the practical point of view in regard to the erection of these buildings.
The number of huts which have been delivered is a very small fraction of the number we expected to receive. I ask the Minister to look into this question. The procedure was that the Ministry of Works should erect the shells, leaving the local authorities to equip them. The result has been that we have had two controls. The officials of the Ministry of Works naturally had to satisfy themselves from their standpoint; we had not one inspection but two, and much time was wasted. I know from experience that had the erection of these huts been undertaken in a more practical way, a great deal more would have been accomplished. The Parliamentry Secretary said that the Supplementary Estimate was due to the particularly satisfactory performance of the local education authorities in hastening on with their work. He took a. good deal of credit for that, and although I agree that the Fstimate may cover a great deal of money in regard to the buildings and the erection of canteens—which I agree are essential—I am not at all sure how much of it represents the actual buildings which will be necessary before we shall be in a position to implement the provisions of the Act, at the end of the summer term. In my own county of Surrey we have not been able to obtain the temporary buildings, and we have not had the huts provided for us. It will make it very difficult for my education authority. I hope that the Minister will give this aspect of the matter grave consideration, and see to it that we have some additional help.
11.0 p.m.
I should also like to raise the question of delays. We had to replace five schools. We submitted our plans to the Ministry last August. The complete plans were submitted at the beginning of November; it is now February, and we are still waiting the approval of the final plans. There is no difficulty in regard to the building. These are free-place buildings which have been destroyed and there is no question of the population having moved away, and no reason why


the Minister should not have given the local authorities instructions to proceed with the schools, which are greatly needed, as we have nowhere to send the children. It is particularly difficult with regard to the primary schools, because the children are small, and cannot be sent to other districts or expected to travel far. To provide secondary education we have done our best to adapt what classrooms we have, but it is impossible to carry on the work in domestic science and practical subjects because there are no rooms available. I would like the Minister to indicate 'how much of this £4,000,000 has been spent on the provision of classrooms for practical subjects in the new secondary schools.
The people in the country today are asking when their children are to get the new secondary education—I am constantly being asked that. Many are dissatisfied because they have been promised that they would have full secondary education for their children without any delay. The grammar schools are still going on in the existing buildings and some of the selected children are getting the benefit. Other people think that their children should share this, and I hope that the Minister will give some indication as to the amount of money which has been allocated for these new buildings, particularly in regard to the raising of the school leaving age.
I am not sure whether the amount in this Vote covers the training of teachers. I hope that the Minister will reply to the question of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities, not merely in regard to the training of teachers in the emergency training colleges, but also as to whether, at this stage, he may be able to do something to provide more places in the universities next year so that we may once more have university graduate teachers. It is essential that we should have these teachers to follow the teachers now being trained to carry out this programme, for which we are being asked to spend £4,000,000, in order that the full implementation of the secondary school course may be carried out.

Mr. King: May I offer my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary on what he has said, and on what he has done? In recent

months, he has probably borne a heavier burden than most Parliamentary Secretaries have had to bear. I think that the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) said that twice in the last 12 months the machinery of administrative education has broken down. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that view. He will probably say that that is an exaggeration, but there can be no doubt that the strain has been very heavy. When the hon. Gentleman said that members of his staff had worked every Sunday since the beginning of this year, I think that some Members said "Hear, hear." I did not feel like saying "Hear, hear" I do not think that that is right, or that education can thrive under those conditions. I urge the new Minister of Education or his Parliamentary Secretary to look into the internal administration of the Ministry. Without that, further progress is going to be difficult. What I have said is not intended as a criticism of civil servants; I know that they are a devoted body of men. But more is being asked of them than should be asked.

Mrs. Leah Manning: With regard to Subhead E, I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not raise a point in which I am very interested, and about which I asked a Question the other day. I hope that something will be said which will give satisfaction to a large body of students in London and in the extra-metropolitan areas, in respect of this Supplementary Estimate. They are the young people who, owing to the difficulty of finding hostel and lodging accommodation near the university, have to live at home, sometimes very long distances from the university. They are deprived of many advantages and in fact they are not really at the university. What they are getting is little more than an extension of school life, accompanied by very long journeys, both morning and night. They are missing what is of great importance to university life, that close contact with a body of young students of their own age who have the same desires in life.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who has had the advantage of being at Cambridge and knows something about the value of university life, will, I feel sure, sympathise with these young people. At the moment, they are getting no chance at all


of joining in what is the most important side of university life. But, added to that, they have to forgo the maintenance grant which they would receive were they living in a hostel or lodgings. If hostel and lodging accommodation were available to them, they would certainly not live at home. It may be that many of their parents are working-class people to whom this burden of maintaining their sons and daughters for an extra three years of university life is very great, and one with which they would not be encumbered if today there was available that hostel and lodging accommodation which once existed.
I feel that these young people suffer a double deprivation. They suffer the deprivation of not being in close touch with the student body which would give them the full advantage of university life. They also suffer from not being able to take part in the unions, the social clubs, and so on, which they would be able to enjoy if they lived nearer the university. In addition, the hard endeavour of their parents to keep them at the university is exploited, because they do not receive this maintenance grant. I had hoped to see in this £4 million Supplementary Estimate that something was going to be done for the young people. Many of them have very heavy fares to pay; they live long distances from the university buildings. I sincerely hope that, within this Supplementary Estimate, something will be done to help those who, because of circumstances, cannot live near the university and, therefore. have to travel long distances and pay heavy fares, but are, at the same time, deprived of maintenance allowances.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not wish to let this occasion pass without making a short intervention. Unfortunately, an engagement has prevented me from hearing the full Debate, and therefore, I do not think I am really entitled to take part in it, but I would like to say that I consider the priority that education is retaining in the present economic blizzard is extremely satisfactory. We are in face of undoubted difficulties of great magnitude in the economic sphere, and I always envisaged, in framing the Education Act, that we should come into this sort of crisis. I was not blind, and I foresaw it, if I may say so. Therefore, I think the fact that extra

moneys are being asked for is not in itself a bad thing. Nor do I think that the fact that the moneys are required for certain purposes, such as the raising of the school-leaving age, is a bad thing either. I shall not enter into that subject tonight. because I do not think this is the occasion to do so, and I have expressed my view on that subject outside the House, and it has been reported. But I think it is satisfactory that hitherto, unlike the Fisher Act, we have managed to preserve a priority—and a first priority—which is a very satisfactory thing to all educationists who are devoted to this subject and art determined that, on this occasion, we are not going to allow the same thing to happen as happened after the 1914–18 war. After the 1914–18 war, the crisis occurred over continuation, and in my view, the Minister of that time, although the architect, did not press his point enough.
I would say to the new Minister, and to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I agree with another hon. Member, has had a heavy burden, that they should press ahead and retain this priority in other fields, particularly in the technical, industrial field, where I think they will have the sympathy of industry, and the sympathy of those who are grappling with the economic crisis. I would only say, in passing, that the other field in which we must retain our priority is in trying to deal with the very large classes which exist up and down the country, and which impose an intolerable strain upon teachers at the present time.
I do not want to go into details on this occasion, but I should like to give due warning to the Minister that, in due course, I may have some ideas to put before him on a suitable occasion when I shall be in Order, for I do not think I would be in Order tonight in touching on all the topics with which I want to deal. I would like also to say that—I think I am in Order in this—I do not sympathise with much of the correspondence which has taken place recently about the type of Minister of Education that we ought to have. I agree with the letter from Dr. Albert Mansbridge in "The Times" today that one should get a practical bloke who is interested in the subject and devoted to it, and encourage him to do his best. That, I think, we have got, and I think we are lucky to get him. Of course, if the Prime Minister had had the range of talent that we have on this side of the Committee,


it would have been quite an easy task for him. But I consider that the educational qualifications of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education, his excellent character, his knowledge of the subject, and his knowledge of the administration of the subject, are very valuable at the present time, and certainly I wish him well in his very onerous task, and I hope I may be able to retain with him the same relationships as I retained with his predecessor, whose passing we all regret.
I conclude by saying a word about U.N.E.S.C.O. I think that the grant for U.N.E.S.C.O., as far as I understand it, is to make part of a revolving fund. It has, therefore, a very peculiar financial significance which I will not go into tonight, but it is not as expensive as it looks. I think that this development, at a moment when the prestige of Britain needs maintaining, is one which owes a great deal of its inspiration to this country. It owes its inspiration to an act of faith performed in the war. Therefore, I hope that we shall by degrees see practical results from this act of faith, and if any of us can contribute in any way to the success of this organisation, I want to say that we would like to do so, and that I am very glad to see that the Government are taking their part in U.N.E.S.C.O.
There are a great many other subjects cm which I could touch. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) referred to the difficulties of local authorities. Those are obvious. There are very great difficulties at the present time, and I hope, as I said to the Minister in a message which I sent to him when he was appointed, that he will take his good works with him, because it is the good works we want. His practical knowledge of huts I hope will be extended to an even more practical knowledge of school buildings, and I hope he will bear in mind what the London County Council has said in their report—that some of the modern buildings are a great deal too expensive. I hope he will look into the whole question of building regulations in the light of modern circumstances.
We on this side of the Committee, and I think many hon. Members opposite as well, are devoted to the cause of the rural schools. We do not wish to retain small schools which are unsuitable, but we trust

that the individual school associated with the life of its own village will be retained That is oui desire, and I hope the matter will be decided on educational grounds and social grounds. When I say social grounds, I mean that education has its part to play in society, and the place of the school in its locality must be retained, if Britain is to remain a healthy place. I hope that on some future occasion I may raise some more severe problems.

Mr. Hardman: We on this side of the Committee always welcome the friendly help we get from my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), and we are extremely grateful to him for his kindly and sympathetic remarks on the passing of our late and gallant Minister. May I presume, with him, to say how much I welcome my new Minister? I feel sure that the combination of practical experience with university education ought, on the whole, to be a very good one.
I can take up only a few of the many interesting points raised tonight. May I first refer to the main point raised by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) in regard to the possible payments of block grants to universities, colleges, and higher educational institutions? It is not quite so easy as it sounds, but I want to assure my hon. Friend that this matter is being considered at the present time. That is one of the major changes in the machinery for the payment of these grants which we hope may be effected for the term that begins before Easter. But I stress the words "may be effected" because I would remind my hon. Friend that, as regards these institutions taking on these onerous duties, they are already under-staffed, and are not at all enthusiastic about taking on a job which may mean as long a period as the so-called delay in the Department at the present time. Then with regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities and the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) about the £100,000 for U.N.E.S.C.O., I would repeat what has been said much better by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden that this is a payment to enable U.N.E.S.C.O., which was set up at the November Conference, to start to function in its headquarters in Paris. It is a payment on account, and contributions from


other nations will come in during the next few weeks and the next few months. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities about the lack of a national commission, I can answer that in two ways. First, the delegation itself has been kept in being, and has met in Belgrave Square to carry on the work where we left off in Paris Secondly, the national commission is being set up at the present time. My hon. Friend will no doubt acknowledge that there are many interests to be considered, and we do want as full representation and co-operation as possible from the interests involved.
Then the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) raised the question of the supply of teachers. This question is being discussed at the meeting of the interim committee which is concerned with the recruitment, supply, and training of teachers. In regard to the point about the provision of county colleges, I would remind him that the provision of buildings must await an Order under the Act. All this is involved with the planning which the local authorities will be doing under the general umbrella of further education. I'here were, I am afraid, many points which my hon. Friend mentioned which really concern development planning, and development plans are being considered at the present time. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett) I would like to say that he was really concerned with a matter of general Government policy, and that I cannot possibly refer to that in this Debate except to acknowledge that I personally am aware, and my right hon. Friend the Minister is very well aware, of the difficulties of implementing to the full the Act of 1944 without giving considerable help to local authorities to get on with buildings and equipment.
The provision of buildings for the raising of the school leaving age was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). It it true that at the present time only a small number of buildings are complete, but we are thinking in terms of completing buildings when the full effect of the raising of the school leaving age is felt in the middle of next year, and with my right hon Friend the new Minister straight from his experience in the other Ministry, it is to be expected that a full drive will take place in that direction.
The last point I would mention is that raised by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). This surely is a matter which has received the sympathy of every hon. Member of this House. Here are students living at home, or, I think the hon. Lady would agree with me, often living with friends, and naturally they have to face important costs in the way of maintenance and travelling expenses. I want to assure the hon. Lady that this point is being looked into, and my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself realise its urgency.
We have been asked tonight for the provision quickly of many new and substantial buildings. We have been accused of talking optimistically about the new secondary education which is to be provided. We have been urged, particularly by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, to get on with the job. I only want to remind him that while we listened to his eloquence he must remember that many precious years were wasted between the wars, when he and his hon. Friends on the other side of the Committee were in power and could have done so much to make the implementation of this 1944 Act very much easier.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Apart from the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, could he answer the question as to whether any of this £4 million is going towards the raising of the school leaving age? That was the point I put to him.

Mr. Hardman: I cannot split this item and give the hon. Member a round figure under that particular heading, but I can assure him that some of the money certainly is being spent for the raising of the school age on 1st April.

Mr. Janner: Could I have an answer to the point about the qualified teachers having served 20 years?

Mr. Hardman: That is a matter which after all concerns the original Estimate, and is to be found in this Estimate as well. It has been discussed with all the representative teachers' bodies and, I would like to remind my hon. Friend, there is something to be said for the teacher who has gone through a course of training and who has passed an examination. There are certain standards to maintain, and the great majority of teachers have taken courses in training


colleges and universities, and are very jealous of the position which they have quite rightly gained by the work they have done.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,610,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

CLASS V

MINISTRY OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947 for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning including grants to local planning authorities, the acquisition of land in connection with the establishment of new Towns, and sundry services.

CLASS VI

EXPORT CREDITS (SPECIAL GUARANTEES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of Match, 1947, for special guarantees given by the Board of Trade under the Overseas Trade Guarantees Scheme.

Mr. Peake: This is a somewhat unusual Supplementary Estimate, and I rise to ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. There is only one Subhead to the Supplementary, and that indicates that the appropriations in aid, originally anticipated at £100,000, will be £65,000, and that, therefore, the additional sum required is £35,000. Now, you, Mr. Beaumont, and your predecessors in the Chair, have ruled that we cannot discuss appropriations in aid. This appropriation in aid is reduced by a sum of £17,000, an anticipated saving on another Subhead. It has also been ruled from the Chair that we cannot discuss anticipated savings. Am I right, therefore, in thinking that, though we are pleased to see the Secretary for Overseas Trade in his place, no contribution what-

ever which either he or I could make to the discussion of this Supplementary Estimate would be in Order?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The right hon. Gentleman has put to me a very difficult question, and a rather unusual one. Discussion can be allowed, but only on the deficit, and why the deficit has occurred.

Mr. Peake: I am glad to have you: Ruling on this, but it does seem to me to cut across previous Rulings, that we cannot discuss either a short fall or a surplus in appropriations in aid. If we are so permitted, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give us a very short explanation of the short fall.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out that, unless one grants that permission on this Estimate there can be no discussion at all. It will, I hope, be sufficient help to have a discussion on the deficit, and why it has occurred.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Marquand): The original Estimate made necessary provision to cover all contracts the Department might have to make in respect of export contracts entered into by British exporting firms. One of these contracts, which it was fully expected would be entered into during the period, fell by the wayside, and has not eventuated, and has not been entered into. Consequently, the premiums expected to be received in respect of it will not be received, and, equally, the liabilities expected to be undertaken will not have to be undertaken.

Mr. Spence: Am I to understand from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that the fact that this contract has not been entered into means that the cost of running the Department has not been covered by the premiums received? I have had experience of the use of the Export Credit Department in my own business, and it is a most admirably run Department, and serves a very useful purpose in what I may call normal times. But here—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now getting out of Order. We can discuss only the deficiency, and why it has occurred.

Mr. Spence: I beg your pardon. I do feel that today there ought to be no real reason for a deficiency to be shown by this Department if it is being run with due economy.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not a question of economy. It is a question of receipts.

Mr. Spence: I am sorry. It seems, then, that the deficiency has been caused by the non-receipt of sufficient premiums to cover the working of the Department. In view of that it would appear that the proper thing to do is to wind up the Department.

11.30 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: In view of the importance of the export trade, it seems remarkable that there is deficiency in premiums, especially since we, are told that there is' an increase above prewar values. Is this facility for export credits being used for the purpose for which the Department catered at first? In view of the relatively small exports and the shortage of these premiums, even greater economies were made and considered advisable, but in winding up these export credits entirely, it was problematical whether it was wise to start them in the first place.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the Resolution. He is now on the question of policy.

Sir J. Barlow: May I ask, then, if, in view of this deficiency in premiums, it would not have been (better for the export trade that the export premium system were entirely removed?

The Deputy-Chairman: That would be a matter of policy, and the Minister would not be able to reply.

Sir William Darling: May I venture to say something on Class VI (5), Sub-head No. 111? The item is: "Z.—Appropriations in Aid: Deficiency in receipts from Premiums, etc., £35,000." What is the percentage of premium charge which has resulted in this deficiency on woollen textile goods and upon electrical machinery? If the Parliamentary Secretary would give this information, it would be very helpful, and then I can see how this deficiency arises.

The conduct of business by premiums is a well known one, although perhaps not so well known in Government circles.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot make any reference to policy.

Sir W. Darling: With respect, I will not, then, pursue my curiosity as regards policy. Instead, I will ask for facts. First, what are the amounts of these premiums? To what does 35,000 relate—to the value of the goods exported, or intended for export? This sum of £35,000 is stated with a barrenness which conveys very little to me, and I am sure that the Secretary for Overseas Trade is anxious that the Committee should know what lies behind his mind in seeking these appropriations in aid. In business, a large amount of circumlocution is necessary so that the simple minds of ordinary business men which, I realise, are inferior to those of Members of Parliament, may be enlightened. This matter needs detailing. It is one of those fundamentally simple matters which I think the Parliamentary Secretary will welcome the opportunity to explain in detail, and if I have provoked him sufficiently to give this guidance I shall be grateful. The country tomorrow will have this renewed interest in overseas trade. It will be stimulated by the clarity or otherwise of the answer given to Subhead No. in, which deals with "Appropriations in Aid: Deficiency in receipts from Premiums, etc." I shall be glad to hear the answer.

Mr. Marquand: I will direct my remarks, Mr. Beaumont, to the section to which the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) referred, and not to the remainder of his speech, which, of course, did not refer to that section at all. He was talking, during his speech, of the normal export credit guarantee work of the Department which runs every year into millions of pounds, and about which full information is given in the ordinary Estimates. We are concerned, here, merely with a section of the Department's work where, under a special Act, there are special guarantees given on occasions where the Advisory Committee find that the political condition of a particular country is such that normal commercial insurance cannot take place. In this case the contract concerned was one into which we expected to enter with the Greek Government. After the contract


had proceeded a certain way the Government in Greece changed, and the new Government who came into office did not feel, for reasons of their own, able to take up the contract. When the estimate was brought forward originally, there were one or two other contracts also in it, and it was estimated that the total appropriation required to meet all possible liabilities under these contracts in the year concerned would be £200,000. The total receipts of premiums estimated to be received in the year concerned—and these contracts run for many years, and it is only over a long period of years that the whole thing is discharged—were £100,000. If we subtract from these figures the part which relates to this contract with Greece, we get estimated payments of £183,000, and estimated receipts of £65,000. If we subtract £100,000 from £200,000, in the first column, we get the net estimate of £100,000. If we subtract £65,000 from £183,000, we get the estimate of £118,000. We are asking tonight for a mere bookkeeping entry of£18,000, which will put the account right.
It may be out of Order for me to say this, but the rest of the work of the Department does not cost the taxpayers one halfpenny. It is a very profitable concern.

Sir W. Darling: On a point of Order. Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I would point out that I asked for some particulars of the nature of the contract.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for special guarantees given by the Board of Trade under the Overseas Trade Guarantees Scheme,

MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £420,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year, ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Fuel and Power

Mr. Butcher: I do not think that at this time, even although the hour is getting

late, we ought to pass the Supplementary Estimate presented by the Ministry of Fuel and Power without the most careful examination. For Members of the Committee may feel that, indeed, it is more than likely that that Ministry will be as wrong in their financial estimates, as they were in their estimates of the availability of fuel. I would therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary for information under certain of the heads shown in this Estimate.
The first, if I may take them alphabetically, concerns the question of travelling expenses. I really think that an extra sum of £25,000 for travelling expenses incurred by the representatives of the Ministry is something which requires most careful scrutiny by the Committee. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the reason for this increase. No longer have the representatives of the Ministry to go round and supervise the wicked capitalist coalowners. They only have to travel now to the Coal Board and to the mines owned by the Coal Board, unless, of course, this provision covers holiday jaunts to Himley Hall. Why is it essential that we should spend this additional £25,000 on travelling expenses, because there is no increase in salaries, and therefore there can be no increase in the number of officials to spend this extra amount in jaunting around the country? I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give an explanation; it will probably be, that the Ministry's Estimates are vague and unreliable, and that they now find the original Estimates cannot be justified.
Under Subhead C, reference is made to publicity, instructional films and exhibitions. I cannot help feeling that the Minister of Fuel and Power has received a substantial amount of publicity lately, although it has not perhaps been the kind of publicity he would want. Nevertheless, the Ministry have received an adequate amount of publicity, and I must press the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how this money is being spent. He will remember that just a fortnight ago, before the Ministry landed us in the present economic crisis, I asked the Minister whether he proposed to continue to insert the advertisements in the newspapers that "We are on the highway to prosperity." The Minister said "Yes," which was, of course, a very satisfactory


answer as far as it went, and I really felt that we were on our way to good things. Having told me that these advertisements were to continue, I have carefully examined the newspapers since that date, but have not been able to find one. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether these advertisements have been discontinued, and if so, whether there is to be any saving on the Estimate. Before leaving the question of advertisements I should like to ask whether it is proposed to advertise the thanks of the whole community to the miners for the admirable work they have done. Let us make it clear that any improvement in the coal position is not due to the Minister of Fuel and Power, but to the miners working in the mines. We now come to instructional films. I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary how these films are being made; whether he is taking advantage of the admirable film-making facilities connected with the Post Office, or whether he has found it necessary to go to the wicked capitalists.
Then we come to the question of exhibitions. It is very easy to think of the Minister of Fuel and Power in this connection. I feel that no one would want a more dreadful exhibition, but I am sure that is not what the word means in connection with these Estimates. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman what kind of exhibitions have been arranged, and what is their purpose. If they were organised for the purpose of saving fuel, it is very poor providence indeed which rests the whole of the saving of coal on a few exhibitions, the cost of which is covered by £20,000. We would like more explanation on this question of exhibitions before we pass this Supplementary Estimate.
11.45 p.m.
Passing over Subheads D and G, both of which, I think cover commendable expenditure, I come to Subhead H, the last line of which reads:
Expenses in respect of consumers' councils appointed under Section 4 of the Act "—
the Act being the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what kind of work can consumers' councils do for £1,000 in the period between now and the end of the financial year? How many trained staff can be placed at their disposal? This is not one council; it is

at least two—I believe one for England and one for Scotland. There will perhaps be more than two, and the more councils there are, the less will be the sum available for each. I would ask him to turn to page 46 of the Supplementary Estimates, where he will see that the Ministry of Civil Aviation have a much better appreciation of the way to run—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing civil aviation at the moment. The hon. Member must keep to the particular Vote under discussion.

Mr. Butcher: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont, for your guidance. All I would say is that if we are to have these councils, adequate provision must be made for them. I say that to spend only £1,000 on consumers' councils is a complete and absolute waste of money.

Mr. Osborne: We are asked tonight to sanction an expenditure of £420,000 in addition to the £3,080.000 already voted. making in all £3,500,000. If this money is wisely spent, it will be the best money which this Government has ever spent. Unless this succeeds, the outlook for the country is bleak indeed. We are not looking at this matter in a critical way. We ought to realise that if this money is wasted, along with the other money which the House and the Committee have voted to the Ministry, the glory that was England will be past. Everything depends on this Ministry succeeding; all the other schemes of the Government are dependent on the success of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and unless this scheme succeeds, the rest of the Government's schemes must fail.
I would ask a question about the money that has been expended, especially under Subhead B. Additional expenditure of £25,000 is being asked for in respect of travelling expenses, making in all £200,000. How much of that money is being spent on train travel, and how much on cars? [Laughter.] It is extraordinary, with what ease and levity Socialist hon. Members are prepared to spend public money. If we are to pass this Supplementary Estimate, we are entitled to investigate how the money is being spent. I repeat, I want to know how much is being spent on road travel and how much on rail travel. I also want to know how many cars are being used. What is the


allowance per mile for the use of those cars?

Mr. Watkins: What is the size of the tyres?

Mr. Osborne: If I were to give an answer worthy of a foolish question, I should be ruled out of Order. I also want to know, what rank a Minister's servant has to hold before he is entitled to have a car, and how many cars have been purchased in the last 12 months. This £200,000 will allow various Government officials to go round the country investigating the work of mine managers. A colliery manager in Leicestershire told me that, even before the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was passed, no less than 27 officials, using these travelling expenses for the purpose, could come along and demand his attention, thus taking him away from his proper work of production and wasting his time. In those days, no less than 27 interfering busybodies from some Department or other could interfere with the work of mine managers, and I want to know whether that number has since been increased, and whether the Minister realises that, every time this money is used for the purpose of officials travelling unnecessarily to the pitheads in order to take the manager away from his job of production, it is hindering the chief aim of 'his Department.
I should like to see less money spent for such a purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "How would it reduce the coal output?"] I am asked in what way it would reduce the coal output, and I am quite prepared to answer that question. The hon Member knows that the main job of a colliery manager is to watch the machinery, hour by hour. If someone from the regional or London office comes down on a joy ride and takes him away from his primary job he cannot perform his proper functions. The time which he should be giving to his job is being fooled away by officials who travel down to his mine and pay for doing so out of this £200,000. Therefore, instead of this Committee voting more money for travelling expenses, it ought to look keenly into this expenditure and cut it down, and thus enable the man on the spot to get on with his job. Any practical miner knows that the point I am making is a very important and germane one.
The second point I wish to raise is in connection with Subhead C, "Other

Administrative Expenses." We are asked to agree to a further Vote of £40,000, making £172,300 in all. On the next page under Subhead C it says:
Additional provision required for—Publicity, including instructional films, exhibitions. etc., £20,000.
I was asked to open one of these exhibitions, and, as we are asked to vote a further £20,000 in respect of them, I think Mr. Beaumont, that I am in Order in referring to them. That exhibition was held in Grimsby early in October last. I never saw a more futile exhibition in my life. I never saw such a piece of bad arrangement and such money and time wasted as on that occasion. I want to know how many such exhibitions were held in, say, January. Does the Department propose to continue holding these wholly futile exhibitions for which we are asked to subscribe the hard-earned money of the taxpayers? I protest against it. The only good thing that came out of the Department's exhibition in Grimsby was a free tea, the best free tea that Grimsby had seen since the war started. Instead of producing coal, the Department are producing tea. This sum of £20,000, to which we are asked to agree, was used for the purpose of putting in two great showrooms new apparatus for the use of fuel, apparatus which people may get in two years' time if they are lucky, and as for fuel, they will get that one knows not when. That exhibition, and all such exhibitions, in a period of stringency, must be a waste of time, and I protest against public money being spent on these exhibitions. For as long as I can remember—and I was brought up in a mining area—the miners have thought that they were carrying usually a boss upon their backs, a man who was usually depicted in cartoons as a big, fat fellow with a huge cigar sticking out of his mouth.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Member to digress, but he has now gone a good deal too far.

Mr. Osborne: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont, for your correction, but may I respectfully point out that we are dealing with expenses, to which we are asked to agree, and that money could only be expended by officials employed by the Ministry.

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not object to the hon. Member dealing with those points, which he has done already, and


has repeated himself several times; but I cannot allow him to make general statements about conditions. He must seep to the Vote.

Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont, and on the question of my repeating myself, surely if I have sinned in that way, I have sinned in very good company.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is no reason why the hon. Member should sin, even if others have done so.

Mr. Osborne: I would like to receive the information for which I have asked about exhibitions, because I saw one of these exhibitions at first hand, and I think I am entitled to ask questions about it. Finally, with regard to the sum of £1,000 for consumers councils, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) referred, surely if that sum is anything at all, it is a sheer farce. There is a sum of £1,000 for consumers' councils to carry on their work for a year. That cannot mean anything serious. The consumers cannot be represented, and cannot have their point of view represented, under such a small Vote. If the Ministry really mean the consumers to have a say in the industry, that amount of £1,000 is far too small. The miners for years have regarded as their ideal an industry run for the miners by the miners without any concept of the consumers at all. If this £1,000 is a mere camouflage to lull the general public into believing that the consumers' views are going to be taken into consideration, than I protest against it.

12 m.

Major Peter Roberts: I make no apology for intervening at this time. I deplore the time, and I deplore the opportunity which the Parliamentary Secretary has afforded us, because it is obvious that the very important decisions which are to be taken now, will have very little publicity. I am afraid that one of the objects of the Government in bringing up this important subject at this hour is, if possible, to try and get away with a great deal which is in these Estimates. May I point out as regards Subhead H, that this is the first time that the expenses of nationalisation have come before the Committee. In this there is the vast amount of £150,000 set out in a certain amount

of detail; details we have been wanting to know, and which the country has been wanting to know. Yet this is the method in which the Minister of Fuel and Power presents it. I must say that it is very unfortunate that a matter like this should be brought up at this time, but, with respect, Major Milner, I do not propose to be limited except by the Rules of Order.
I want to ask, first, about the item for travelling expenses. The main outline has already been given, and I am not going to go over that again, but let us look at past records. I notice that the total amount which this makes is £200,000. On looking back I find that this amount before the war was not £200,000, it was not £100,000, it was not even £50,000. In 1938–1939 it was £28,000, and therefore there is an increase of about seven times.

The Chairman (Major Milner): I would point out to the hon. Member that we are only discussing the additional £25,000 required.

Major Roberts: I am fully aware of that, Major Milner, and it is this further sum of £25,000 that I am questioning. It is because so little has been spent in the past, that I think we must have some explanation of the extra £25,000. A certain amount of time might have been saved if the Parliamentary Secretary had given some explanation in the first place. It is this £25,000 that is the final straw; and if it is necessary, it must be related to the output of coal. We appreciate that, but the question I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer is: Why is this £25,000 needed? The amount is seven times more than it was before the war, yet the total production of coal is less. It is fundamental and disturbing, and although hon. Members may feel that this is irrelevant, I would point out that if nationalisation is going to work, hon. Members must know that criticisms will pile up on overheads. This is the first example of it.
I pass on now to Subhead C, where there is an additional sum of £4.0,000 bringing the Estimate to £172,000. Looking back through the previous years I lind this figure was not £100,000, it was not £50,000; it was £3,000. This figure has increased from £3,000 to £172,000. I appreciate that a certain amount in salaries which have been switched over,


but nothing like the whole amount could possibly be explained in that way. I think the Committee and the mining industry are entitled to know what this extra £40,000 is for. To my mind it is not defensible at all, and if we pass of complacently because the hour is late, as possibly the Parliamentary Secretary wishes, we shall set a precedent which will not be good, either for the Government or for the industry.
Under Subhead C, it has been pointed out already, publicity and instructional films are included—and also "et cetera." I want to know whether, in "et cetera" are included the various parties which the Minister has given. It produced a certain amount of despondency about the country when, at the time of crisis, the Ministry were holding parties, and if that is so I for one do not propose, without proper explanation, to pass this extra £40,000. I think that is an improper way to spend public money. Secondly, publicity—[Laughter.] This is not quite so fundamental a point, so perhaps the laughter is a little more relevant, but not, very much. How much of that goes to the public relations officers of the Ministry? I noticed the other day that a public relations officer of the Ministry was writing letters trying to defend his master. I do not think that that is a proper way of expending public money. In all nationalisation schemes, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary must appreciate, it would be very dangerous if the Government used for political purposes the money put into their hands. There is a possibility that we on this side of the Committee may be biased—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I am afraid we are—but there is a tendency in the country to feel that the Government are using public money for political purposes, which I think is a bad precedent. The same point arises on instructional films, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deny that; it would be most helpful if he could. A film is going around, especially in the Northern areas, which has a definitely Leftist tendency, and I feel that public money should not be spent on sending round Leftist, almost Communist, films. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), with his white tie, apparently objects to that, but I think it is most unwarrantable. Do

not let us start a political battle over the nationalised coal industry again—

Mr. McAllister: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to me, although I hesitate to refer to certain sartorial exhibitions on the other side, I agree with him that it would be most deplorable if public Departments were to use public money to advertise Ministers, but surely—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member seems now to be making a speech.

Major Roberts: I want to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that this extra expenditure does not seem to be justified, and unless he can justify it I think the Committee ought to be very careful about passing it.
Now I come to a far more fundamental subject, namely Subhead H. I believe that this Supplementary Estimate should have been brought in at a time when full discussion would have been easier, because here we are beginning to see the first workings of the nationalised machine which the Government have instituted in this respect. What I feel is, that though, admittedly, it may cost the whole of £150,000 to institute the machinery of nationalisation, the figure of £50,000 for the expenses in connection with what, I presume, is the arbitration is, I think, exceedingly high. I am glad to see a Law Officer here, and I hope we shall be able to be told the sum of money which was spent on lawyers' fees in this arbitration. It cost, I think, a great deal of time, and public money to the tune of £50,000 and that seems to me to be extremely excessive.
The next point is the question of the expenses in respect of district valuation boards. I do appreciate the reason for the £1,000. I imagine it would be very difficult for the Minister to set up consumers' councils before the end of the year. Indeed, that £1,000 may still be there at the end of the year. But on that analysis, what about the district valuation boards? Are they to be set up and to be functioning before the end of the year? It sems to me to be most unlikely. Is the £89,000 for money already spent? I very much doubt it. So far as I know, the names of those to be appointed to the district valuation boards have not yet been published. Indeed, we are waiting with a certain amount of interest to see who will be appointed to them. I cannot see that


£89,000 being spent between now and the end of the year. I should like definite information on that. It seems to me to be a somewhat high figure.
The next question in connection with that figure of £89,000 is: are there going to be salaries paid? The way the Ministry have refused to let us know the salaries of their staffs has been deplorable. Yet here we have expenses of £89,000. Is not this the time. if Question time is not, for us to be told—we, who are passing these expenses—now this sum is made up, and what the salaries are, and the salaries of the chairmen of the district valuation boards and of the board members? That is a very pertinent question. It applies also to the central valuation, board. I think it is wrong for the Ministry to withhold from the Committee this information, for the Committee holds the final financial reins in its hands—or, at any rate, it does in theory: the reins seem to be slipping from us. People outside are interested, also. I hope we shall get some figures on that score. I put these points very sincerely. The criticisms on the political side are meant to be constructive. I do consider the full figures and facts should be given, and given willingly, by the Parliamentary Secretary.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Peake: My three hon. Friends behind me have covered the ground with considerable assiduity, and there is little left to which to direct my remarks. But I think we ought to be told a little more about the sum of £50,000 under Subhead H—expenses in connection with the nationalisation of the coal industry. This £50,000 is in connection with the determination under Section to of the Act of the aggregate amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the coal industry. I imagine that the £50,000 was for the expenses of the arbitration tribunal which sat in London in June and July of last year under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Greene. My impression is that they sat for three weeks, but as the meetings were in secret, it is not easy for an ordinary member of the public to estimate the length of the trial. But hon. Members opposite are interested in this question of trials and lawyers' fees, and I should be very disappointed if the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) went to bed io-night with her curiosity unsatis-

fied as to the names of the counsel employed during this great trial, and the amount of the fees.

Mr. Tiffany: Is it in Order for the rt. hon. Gentleman to refer to the hon. Lady going to bed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): May I deal with the questions about Subhead "H" straight away? It raises technical points and issues on which rt. hon. and hon. Members want serious answers. The £50,000 is in respect of the expenses of the arbitration tribunal whicn settled the global sum of compensation. I would remind the rt. hon. Gentleman that we are under an obligation not merely to pay our own counsel's fees, but also a reasonable part of those of the other party. This is an estimate of the amount we shall have to pay this year.

Mr. Peake: Before the Parliamentary Secretary passes from that point, is he not going to tell the Committee the names of the counsel engaged, or the amount received in fees, as was done last night by the Solicitor-General in dealing with the Nuremberg trials?

Mrs. Braddock: It seems to have got under their skins somewhat.

Mr. Gaitskell: The names were published in the Press at the time. Why ask me for this information? Furthermore, there was nothing secret about it. The district valuation boards have not been set up, as the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts) pointed out, but under Section 15 of the Act, we are obliged to meet the cost of registration. I am pointing out that under Section 15, we are obliged to pay reasonable costs of that registration, and some of that expenditure may fall due during this current year.
Additional travelling expenses consist of two items. There are additional expenses because we are doing more prospecting for opencast mining, and I would point out that opencast mining did not take place before the war, so that comparisons on that account are really of no use. The other part of the travelling expenses is for mining inspectors who do not, as some hon. Members have suggested, harass the managers. They go down the mines to look after the safety of the workers, which is far from harassing the managers.

Mr. Osborne: Is this in addition to the 27 officials of one kind and another, who have power to go to the mines on one pretext or another, and take the manager from his primary job?

Mr. Gaitskell: The question we are discussing is the extra travelling expenses. The extra travelling expenses here are in respect of opencast mining prospecting, and the additional travelling of mining inspectors recently returned from the Forces. I do not think that the hon. Member is in order in referring to anything else. As regards publicity that item is entirely concerned with, recruitment for the mines, and I imagine that even hon. Members opposite will agree that it is desirable that we try to recruit for the mines. We take the view that this recruiting campaign which we have carried out, has been markedly successful. We have, during the past year, recruited some 75,000 men for the pits.
As to the details of the films, well these films are primarily designed to arouse interest in a mining career. We have shown some of them in the House, and I believe that hon. Members appreciated them. Certainly the public do. Regarding exhibitions, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is, of course, a specialist in exhibitions—

Mr. Osborne: Never give a gibe unless you can take one.

Mr. Gaitskell: We are not, as a matter of fact, concerned with the exhibitions in this Estimate. They are not those dealing with fuel efficiency and economy to which the hon. Member referred. They again, were recruiting exhibitions; and I may say, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall, that we have held 38 of these exhibitions, and they have been attended sometimes by 5,000 and sometimes by 60,000 people.

Mr. Osborne: Am I not in Order in asking a question on a point such as is set out here, on expenses; and am I not entitled to a proper answer given civilly, instead of in such a sneering manner?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is entitled to ask questions, and in the course of his speech he did ask questions. The nature of the reply is determined by the Minister who is speaking.

Mr. Gaitskell: I assure the hon. Member that no discourtesy to him was intended. As regards the consumers' councils, I would always be prepared to answer the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), who raises important points courtebusly at the last minute. Northern Ireland administers the petrol rationing and other control schemes on our behalf. The cost of living has gone up, and the cost-of-living bonus involves extra payments. It is only a little more. In addition to that, there are certain other payments connected with establishment charges where in fact we have made a payment in their favour.

Sir W. Darling: A sum of 50,000for recruiting?

Mr. Gaitskell: Recruiting in Northern Ireland is done by the Minister of Labour. and not by us. The item for consumers' councils, as the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall pointed out, of course covers expenditure only to the end of this financial year. It is unlikely, I think, that that sum will be exceeded in that time.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Gentleman's reply in one respect completely failed to satisfy hon. Members on this side of the Committee. We asked for information as to details of the £50,000 spent on the arbitration tribunal: he has declined to give us any particulars of any sort or kind. I must warn him that although we will not prolong this Debate tonight, when the matter comes before us on the Report stage, we shall expect an answer to these questions.

Mr. Butcher: I hope hon. Members opposite will not complain about being kept here late at night. After all, they voted for the privilege of being here at this time of night; I voted against it. But I want to say that I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the courteous manner in which he has replied to certain questions addressed to him. I am bound to say that the answers we have received from the Parliamentary Secretary have been unsatisfactory, particularly in relation to exhibitions. He has told us that these films and exhibitions are designed to aid recruitment. I desire to ask in what areas these exhibitions have taken place, and whether any of these posters, films and exhibitions have been directed to displaced persons, and others, in an attempt to bring in foreign workers to supplement


the miners in this country. I must press him on this question of the determination of the aggregate amount. It has been clearly pointed out that these figures must be produced at a later stage. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is sitting next to the Solicitor-General. If the Parliamentary Secretary had had a little more experience of the kind of information which is desired on these matters, he would have done well to have taken as a pattern the extreme courtesy of the Solicitor-General, last night, in giving us full information on other Estimates in a most charming manner.

Mr. Tiffany: I am pleased to note in these Estimates an item for £20,000 for testing and research in mines and quarries. I hope that as a result of this extra expenditure we shall be able to out down to some extent the wastage of manpower in the mines due to accidents. As a result of this research, I hope we shall be able to go ahead and do more than was done in the past in this direction, and that now the mines belong to the country, we shall be able to take out a lot of the equipment which is insecure, obsolete and inefficient I hope that research will be carried out, particularly in the electrical direction, and that it will be of great benefit in the saving of lives. I am pleased to see this Supplementary Estimate put down, and I sincerely hope it will result in the saving Of life.

Mr. Osborne: I am very sorry indeed to keep you, Mr. Beaumont, but I make no apology to the night-shift of the Socialist Party, who will, no doubt, get overtime for their work. May I have an answer to the two questions I put to the Parliamentary Secretary on the extra money we are voting for travelling expenses?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now repeating what he said in his previous speech.

Mr. Osborne: I am merely asking for an answer to my question. Surely I am entitled—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Osborne: No, I will not be in Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may say he will not be in Order, but as far as the Chair is concerned, it will try to keep him in Order.

Mr. Osborne: It was not the Chair which called me to Order, but the aspiring chairmen whom I will not obey. Am I not entitled—?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to an answer. He may ask a question, and he must then wait for an answer.

Mr. Osborne: May I take it, then, that if the Parliamentary Secretary refuses to give an answer, it is something which he does not wish to disclose?

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £420,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1947, for the cost of certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Peake: I think that we must ask, although there is a footnote which explains to some extent why the additional sum of £14,000 is required, for some further explanation. The footnote explains that the £14,000 is the value of the contributions towards transport charges reasonably incurred by certain hill farmers in specified counties. I think that we ought to know which are the specified counties—I presume that they are in England and Wales—where farmers, owing to the abnormal loss of their fodder crops on account of bad weather during the 1946 harvest must necessarily purchase supplies from a distance in order to preserve their breeding or rearing stocks. We might perhaps be told what kind of fodder is being subsidised in this way, in what counties this money is being expended, and how one applies for a grant, if one is entitled to a grant.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): The circumstances which make this Estimate necessary really arise from the adverse harvest weather of last year, when


there was a serious shortage of fodder crops in the hill farming districts. It was feared that unless something was done to help get fodder into these hill farming districts we should stand a serious chance of losing the sheep breeding stocks in the hill districts. It was, therefore, decided to give assistance by way of a grant of 75 per cent. of the transport charges necessarily incurred in excess of 15s. a ton where hay and straw had to be brought from other parts of the country. The districts affected were the hill districts which come under the Hill Cattle Subsidy Scheme, including Westmorland and Cumberland. The method of obtaining a grant is to make application to the war agricultural executive committees, who satisfy themselves that the fodder is not available in the particular districts, and O.K. the applications, or otherwise, after investigating the circumstances.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making the position clear. I live in a hill farming district and among hill farmers, and none of them, so far, has heard of this scheme. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman's speech were properly publicised it would bring the matter to their attention.

Sir J. Barlow: I should like to put a few brief questions to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, as I am very interested in this subject. During the summer, I was in certain of the hill farming districts, and I know only too well how deplorable was the weather and how great the shortage of crops. With uncut hay and corn over-ripening, there was evidence at that time that there would be very little fodder, and the situation looked very serious. To me, it would seem that this figure is far too small. We have had a most important Bill put through this House—the Hill Farming Bill—with a view to increasing the stocks of cattle and sheep on the hills. We know how difficult it is, owing to the foreign exchange position, to import the necessary beef and mutton for the people of this country. For that reason, it is most important to maintain the hill stocks of this country, and those on the marginal lands.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not say, in the course of the very brief answer which he kindly gave, whether this applied only to sheep, or to both sheep

and cattle, as do the other subsidies, or whether it applied also to other hill-farming stock, such as horses, ponies, pigs and poultry. These animals are all part of hill-farming stock. Further, he did not say whether this was confined merely to the areas which can draw the hill cattle or sheep subsidies. It is also of importance, not only to obtain breeding stocks, but to maintain the milk which is at present being produced in the hill districts. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that, during the war, a large number of hill farmers and marginal land farmers turned over to the production of milk. They did not have very suitable accommodation for milk production, but, when the call for milk came, they turned over to producing it. It is important to maintain the supplies of milk, and I would ask that, among other things, this Vote should be used to help maintain those supplies.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now dealing with policy, which is not in Order on this Vote.

Sir J. Barlow: In order to maintain these supplies of milk, it is necessary to rear the young stock which is being sent in increasing numbers from the lowlands to the hill farms. There has been a natural tendency, although I do not think it is part of a definite policy, for calves to be taken from farms on the flat, which are producing large quantities of milk, to the marginal farms where they are reared in cheaper circumstances. They are only brought down to the milk producing farms again when they are about to calve. I should like the Minister to tell us—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman would be guided by me, he would not discuss what is not in the Vote, and thus become out of Order. This Vote only deals with transport.

Sir J. Barlow: Transport is the all important matter in getting fodder stocks to the hill farms. I am sure that all hill farmers would appreciate some information as to the type of fodder which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has in mind. It is not very often that this Committee discusses an agricultural matter after midnight, and I feel sure that many hill farmers will be delighted to know that we are burning the midnight oil in an endeavour to help them in their diffi-


culties. In view of what is required, the money voted for transport is relatively far too small. However, as only £14,000 is allowed on this Estimate, it is most important that it should be used in the best possible way. It is obviously going to give very much better value it the fodder is taken to the farms in the form of linseed cake and similar foods rather than in the form of straw. Straw costs £2 or £3 a ton to remove, according to the distance, as I very well know, because I have had to spend money in that way. Infinitely better value is obtained both by the farmers and by the Ministry, if for this purpose a certain amount of linseed cake and other high protein food can be allowed to go up instead of wasting good transport on carting almost worthless straw, possibly wheat straw or oats straw, which is a little better, although it may be a very great waste of good intentions and good money spent on helping the hill farmers. I hope the Government will consider using this money in the best possible way to help the hill farmers. As has already been said, it is of infinite importance that this matter should be widely known. I know hill farming districts where nothing is known of this. I gather it will be allowed only for about another month or six weeks, so that it is important that this should be known as quickly as possible in order to maintain the all-important stocks of this country which we can very ill afford to let down at the present time.

Resolved:
That a Suoplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947 for the cost of certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

CLASS I.

GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £,25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.

Mr. Osborne: I apologise for keeping the Committee, but I would like to know the type of hospitality which the Govern-

ment propose to provide The Estimate states that
further provision is required to meet expenditure in connection with the forthcoming visit of members of the Supreme Soviet.
I want to know how many will be in the delegation that is to come to this country. How long will they be likely to be in this country, and how much per head per week will it cost us? I do not ask this in any spirit of opposition, because I think it is one of the best things the Government have done so far. If there is to be any peace, we have somehow got to be able to get on with the Russians better in the future than we have done in the past, especially since we have had a Socialist Foreign Secretary. I want to know whether the Socialist Government are going to give to our distinguished guests any of what I should call working-class hospitality, or is it all to be the Savoy type of hospitality? Will the Government see that they get as wide an experience as possible of English life during their short stay, and finally, is there any hope of a similar English party being entertained in Moscow as a result of this visit?

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I cannot give the number of people who will be involved in this visit, but they will include quite a number of people who have to assist by being interpreters, and so on, and therefore, I cannot give the definite number who will be included in the visit, which will last for just over a month. The places which the delegation will visit will cover the whole of the country, and I can assure the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) that they will be entertained by all types of organisations and people in various parts of the country. I feel quite certain that the benefit of this visit will be such that the amount of money here involved will be regarded as having been well spent.

Mr. Tiffany: May I express my pleasure that this money is to be spent for this purpose? I am glad to see present the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and at least ten Tory Members. I sincerely hope that this sum of money will allow us to give hospitality to our Allies in a manner befitting the people who fought so gallantly alongside us in the defeat of Fascism. I also hope that this hospitality will help to smooth away some of the suspicions that have, unfortunately, been felt between our two countries, and


will assist in fostering better trade relations between our two countries for the benefit of us both. I hope that these friendly relations will be better cemented as a result of this visit than they have been before.

12.45 a.m.

Colonel Wigg: I want to congratulate the Government on putting down this Vote, and asking the Committee to approve it tonight. It is a deplorable fact that it has taken 28 years before a Government of this country has taken such a step as this. The Government are to be further congratulated on making their preparations in the light of day. Everybody knows we are going to entertain our former Ally. Before the war the Conservative Party would not have done anything like this. They would have entertained, but not, of course, in an open manner. They would have been meeting Hitler's friends in somebody's private house, either in this country or, as happened a few days before the war broke out, in a villa in Jutland to see how they could bring about a super-Munich. Therefore, I hope the Committee will approve this Vote, and if it is not enough, the Government should come back and ask for more.
I join with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)—although I doubt my reasoning when I find myself in agreement with him—in hoping that they will not be entertained at the Savoy, because at the Savoy they would not meet the kind of Briton that our Russian Allies ought to meet. They will not meet there people who made the major contribution to the winning of the war. They would be much more likely to meet the war profiteer, the black marketeer, the idle rich and so forth.

Mr. Osborne: And Hannan Swaffer?

Colonel Wigg: I do not know, I do not go there myself. I hope our Russian Allies will visit the British Restaurants and civic restaurants where, as a result of a recent very wise decision, they will be able to drink vodka. I hope that entertainment for our Russian friends will appear in the Estimates year after year, and thus be able to cement the friendship we all want to see with our gallant Russian friends.

Mr. Harold Davies: I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

Dudley (Colonel Wigg). I would emphasise the fact that this is the first time that the Government have given notice to the public beforehand, that we wish to entertain our gallant Allies. I hope that facilities will be given for our Russian Allies to see the whole gamut of our nation's life. Both sides of the Committee are in accord with this Vote tonight. I hope that we shall get that freer relationship with our Russian Allies which will encourage their people to see the British way of life, side by side with their own. Would it be possible, out of this allocation of £25,000, for the Inter-Parliamentary Union to have a bigger grant than it is getting at the present time, to give hospitality to members of democratic assemblies in other parts of the world?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the Inter-Parliamentary Union on this Vote.

Colonel Wigg: I noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite were shaking their heads when my hon. Friend was speaking—

Hon. Members: Was that out of Order?

Colonel Wigg: I am not suggesting it was out of Order, but I do suggest that under the skin, it is the same old wolf—they much prefer their Fascist friends to the Soviet Union.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1947, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF WORKS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Butcher: I do not want to detain the Committee at this time of night, but I would like to say that many of us welcome the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works in his new place. Now that the Ministry is in his hands, we would be grateful if he would open his career


there by explaining the items in the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Key: There is little I need say about this. The increase so far as salaries are concerned, arises from the fact that there have been increases in the general rates of pay, not increases in the staff, dating back to 1st April, 1946. The item "incidental expenses" is concerned with the development of the photographic and printing sections of the Ministry.

Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ripley, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th February, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Felling, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th February, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Barnard Castle, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th February, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Sleaford, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th February, be approved.—[Mr. Ede.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes to One o'Clock.